Thus, the Application brought before the instant Court is not the same as the proceedings instituted against the Applicant by the criminal martial court of Nigeria. 41. Similarly, it circumstances, is the the view of the or conclusions findings instant Court that established under or established by the martial courts of Nigeria seised to determine Alimu Akeem is guilty or not, and to sentence him, do not yet such to be whether have any determining effect on the Court’s adjudication upon the grievances and requests brought by the Applicant. At any rate, the Application before the instant Court has no criminal connotation. As such, the criminal nature of the action instituted against Alimu Akeem in Nigeria cannot be admitted as a ground for declaring the Application which the instant Court is seised with as inadmissible. Therefore, that plea in law fails. (iii) That the Court has no jurisdiction to re-examine decisions made by the national courts essentially had to do with a re-examining of judgments already delivered by the domestic courts, the Honourable Court held that they be disi€ #@@-2¢ (see in this regard: Judgment on Jerry Ussa®we v..Wigeria and Christian Okeke, 7 October 2005, §32; Judgment on Moussa Leo Keita v. Mali, 22 March 2007, §26; Judgment on Sa’adatu Umar v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 14 December 2012, §). Now, in the instant case, the Court is not asked to re-examine the judgments of the General CourtMartial which determined the culpability of Alimu Akeem; the Court is rather seised with a case on the human rights violations which allegedly occurred in the course of the procedure at the domestic court. The instant Court is therefore not asked to re-examine the decisions of the martial courts of Nigeria. Consequently, this plea in law must equally be set aside. Regarding the merits of the case 43, The Court now examines whether in the instant case there is violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter and whether the reliefs sought Applicant may be granted. by the \ 42, It is trite that in those cases where the subject-matter of the dispute