Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State. This provision envisages that it is the Member State whose action or omission resulted in the violation of the rights of the individual as enshrined in human right instruments that is the appropriate defendant. In other words, it is the State as an entity in international law that assumes responsibility; officials of such states or component parts or government are mere agents whose acts are attributable to their States in international law in appropriate circumstances. Individuals, component parts of a State and other institutional categories are not necessary parties before the Court. Matters relating to human rights violations between individuals belong to the national or domestic Court of Member States. It is only a member State under these arrangements that can be sued as a defendant. Individuals of any category or creed are not recognized as Defendants in a human rights actions before the Court. Accordingly the 3rd, 4th, 5th Defendants have no business of being parties to this suit. In this regard, the names of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants are hereby struck out of the proceedings for not being appropriate parties. With regard to the 2nd Defendant it is absurd that the Plaintiffs also instituted this action against it. From the facts without alluding too much law it is obvious it was the 1st 19