9 Corporate entities like the plaintiff herein are therefore excluded. Learned Counsel stated that in the Hadijatou lt1ani Koraou Case (supra), this Court stated thus "it should be pointed out that human rights are inherent rights of the human person". 29. Learned counsel continued that the position of this Court on the subject of human rights is supported by the doctrine of human rights in international law. Counsel quoted extensively from various international legal li1struments which has defined human rights as rights belonging to individual human beings. For example, the "Dictionaire de droit international public", published in 2001 (under the direction of Professor Jean Salmon), Brussels, B1-uyant stated that "human rights" are "all rights and fundamental freedoms of the human person and concern all human beings". Similarly, the "Dictionnaire des Communautes europeenes", published in 1993, Paris noted that 'fundamental rights" are "a core of essential and inalienable rights of the human person, valid in all circumstances, no possibility of derogation... " 30. Further, com1sel contends that the African Charier on Hmnru1 and Peoples ' Rights on which plaintiffs claim is based, is available for the benefit of only li1dividuals. Counsel noted that even by definition, the Charter provisions inure to the benefit of only individuals. Again, the preamble speaks of the "attributes of the human person" whilst various articles including Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13 all make reference to words and phrases such as "the inviolability of the human person, any individual, citizens, right 'to dignity, freedom of assembly and movement etc" which all denote that the provisions thereof are exercisable by human beings and not artificial persons including corporate bodies. Counsel concludes that the plaintiff, not being a humru1 being, cannot benefit from the human right provisions enshrined in the African Charier on Human and Peoples' Rights. 31. Moreover, counsel contends that the plaintiff has failed to establish the violation of any fundamental right and therefore its application ought to be dismissed. In A1oussa Leo Keita v. Republic of A1ali (Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/05/06, judgment delivered on 22nd March 2007), this Court rejected the application and stated thus "the Applicant's counsel has not indicated ru1y proof of a characteristic violation of a fundamental Human Right; and in the absence of any such violation, the Application must be declared inadmissible". 9