33· Furthermore, the 3rd defendant avers that it does not lie within its powers to determine whether, when or how a death warrant is to be-executed. I That it is the exclusive preserve of the representative State Governors or the President of the country. It made reference to Sections 371 and 374 of the Criminal Procedure Act Cap C41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and sections 294-298 (Criminal Procedure Code). Also section 204 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria vests in the Court of Appeal, the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the High Court of a State. The 3'd defendant relied on the case of Mousa Leo Keita v The State of Mali (2009) 1 CCJLR (PT2) 58: The Community Court of Justice held that it is not a Court of Appeal visa-vis the national courts of member states. Also, that it does not possess the power to revise decisions made by the domestic courts of member States; hence it was powerless and cannot adjudicate upon decisions of national courts. It therefore submitted that the jurisdiction of the Community Court does not extend to appeals from decisions of domestic courts of member States. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT 34· Having considered the facts of this case, the legal arguments of the respective parties, the reliefs sought by the parties, we hold that the said issues require serious consideration to determine their veracity, justification and the -proof of the application herein. JURISDICTION ··-· 35· Let us restate clearly from the onset that the question of jurisdiction was determined in the preliminary ruling decided in this case whereby the court held that where the facts raised the issues of violations of human rights that occur in any member state and the complaint is by an individual and pursuant to Articles 9(4) and 10(1) of the Supplementary Protocol, Article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS, Article 5 of the African charter or any of the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights relating to the rights of the people collectively and individually and other international human rights instruments assented to by the Member States of ECOWAS with no pending litigation in any - international court, this Court would assume jurisdiction. Having considered the facts and all the relevant instruments we held that the court had jurisdiction to determine the subject matter in this case. We further affirm that this court has jurisdiction in this case. Now to the issues raised in the substantive matter which shall be taken below thus: 10