Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004-2009) CCJLR 63 at 74-75 and Hammani Tidjani Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004-2009) CCJLR 77 esp. at 88-90. In Moussa Leo Keita, in deciding on the issue of the subject matter of jurisdiction, this Court pointed out that it is only the non- observance of any of the texts applicable by it that justifies and found the legal proceedings before it and went on to hold that it does not have the competence to review decisions of domestic Courts. The Court went further to hold that in the absence of any proof of a characteristics violation of a human rights, the action must be declared inadmissible. The purport of the decision in Leo Keita’s case is that it is not enough for applicant to state that his human rights have been violated for the Court to assume jurisdiction. The allegation must disclose evidence of a characteristic violation. In Bakary Sarre Vs. Mali this Court in considering the preliminary objection raised by Mali Stated; The competence of the Court to adjudicate in a given case depends not only on its texts but also on the substance of the initiating application. The Court accords every attention to claims made by applicants, the pleas-in-law invoked, and in an instance where human rights violation is alleged, the court equally considers how the parties present such allegations. The court 23