consideration- a) there must be an allegation of human rights violation and; b) such violation must have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Member State against which the application was brought.” 78. In the instant case, the Applicant relies his initial application on alleged violation of his human rights, namely, the right to presumption of innocence, the right to respect for reasonable time for pre-trial proceedings and the right of access to justice and prays the Court to find such violations. 79. Therefore, contrary to the Defendant's contention, this Court has not been called upon to analyse judgment No. 2020/033/CC/CRIM of 27 May 2020 rendered by the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation nor to interpret national law, namely the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force in Niger. 80. Indeed, this Court has stated several times that it is not a court of appeal, nor of cassation or reformatio of decisions taken by national courts, as rightly submitted by the Defendant. See, inter alia, the case of JERRY UGOKWE v. THE REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA), Judgment of 7 October 2005, Case No. ECW/CCJ/02/05, para. 32. 81. This means that it is outside the Court's mandate to review a judgment delivered by a court of a Member State to confirm or revoke it. (See also the case of BAKARY SARRE & 28 ORS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MALI, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11 of 17 March 2011, p. 22; The case AJAMI YASMINE MARIE JEANNE v. STATE OF CÔTE D'IVOIRE, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/12/20 of 8 July 2020, paras.172 and 173) 82. Likewise, in the same vein, the Court emphasised, in the case MESSRS ABDOULAYE BALDE & ORS v. REP OF SENEGAL, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/13 para. 72, that: “(...) its consistently held case laws that it has no mandate to examine the national laws of Member States or to review decisions made by the domestic courts of member states.” 15