14. The Repu·blic of Togo submits that if Plaintiff Counsel fails to justify the true existence of the Applicants by means of irrefutable legal evidence, it shall be appropriate to declare the action brought by the Applicants as inadmissible for lack of locus standi and lack of capacity to sue in court. Analysis of the Court Regarding jurisdiction 15. In several of its judgments, the Court has consistently held that its jurisdiction shall be upheld whenever an application submitted before it invokes human rights violation arising from the provisions of Article 9(4) of the Protocol on the Court as amended by the 19 January 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which provides: "The Court has jurisdiction to . l determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State." (Refer notably to: Judgment on Case Concerning Hissein Habre v. Republic of Senegal, 14 May 2010, §53, §58 and §59; Judgment on Case Concerning Alhaji Mohammed Ibrahim Hassan v. Gombe State and Federal Republic of Nigeria, 15 March 2012, §38; Judgment on Case Concerning Sa'adatu Umar v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 12 June 2012, §16). 16. Conside-ring the- circumstances of the case, notably the. charges brought, the arguments and pleas in law invoked, as well as the orders sought by the Applicants, the Court is of the view that the substance of the dispute centres essentially on alleged human rights violations which occurred on : the territory of the Republic of Togo, a Member State of ECOWAS . The Court therefore adjudges that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the requests brought. Regarding admissibility 17. Article 10(d) of the Protocol on the Court as amended by the 19 January 2005 Supplementary Protocol provides: “Access to the Court is open to (...) individuals on application 'tor relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: (i) Not be anonymous; nor (ii) Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication." 6 ..c -L.i_-