droits de l’homme résultant d’une décision de justice ; Que si le juge communautaire ne peut apprécier la bonne application des textes de droit interne par les juges nationaux, il reste compétent pour relever les violations des droits de l’homme même lorsqu’elles ont pour origine une décision rendue par un juge d’un des Etats membres ; Que le juge des droits de l’homme qu’il est, ne remplirait pas son rôle de protecteur des droits de l’homme, s’il devait laisser échapper des violations flagrantes des droits de l’homme, contenues dans des décisions des juridictions nationales.” (Emphasis added) 86. In the same vein, this Court has stated that it is competent to examine national legislation whenever necessary to ascertain whether its application results in a violation of the human rights invoked. 87. In the instant case, the Defendant State also appears to wish to question the competence of this Court to examine the national legislation of a Member State, in particular its own, to ascertain the legality or legitimacy of the pretrial detention imposed on the Applicant. 88. In this regard, the Court in the case FEDERATION OF AFRICAN JOURNALIST v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA, relying on its own jurisprudence, reiterated that: “it will not examine the laws of member states in abstracto since it is not a constitutional court but, once human rights violation are alleged, it invokes its jurisdiction to examine whether or not there has been violation.” (page 31). 89. The Court thus concludes that it is competent to examine both a national judicial decision of a Member State and the national legislation whenever they contain an allegation of a violation of human rights. 90. Thus, considering the facts alleged and the reliefs sought by the Applicant, the ground for the present action is the alleged violation of human rights, allegedly committed in the territory of the Defendant State, 17