how the parties present such allegations. The Court therefore looks to find out whether the human rights violation as observed constitutes the main subject-matter of the application and whether the pleas in-law and evidence produced essentially go to establish such violation.” 50. Additionally, in the above cited Judgment, delivered in the case Mr. Chude MBA v. Republic Of Ghana3, the Court stated that: “As a general rule, jurisdiction is inferred from the Plaintiffs claim and in deciding whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present action, reliance has to be placed on the facts as presented by the Plaintiff.” 51. The jurisdiction of this Court is governed by Article 9 of Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court, as amended by Additional Protocol A/SP.1/01/05. 52. And the paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Article 9 provides the following: “The Court has jurisdiction to determine the cases of human rights violations that occur in any Member State.” 53. As this Court has stated in several judgments, its jurisdiction cannot be called into question whenever the facts claimed are related to human rights. Cfr. the Judgments Nos ECW/CCJ/RUL/03/2010 of 14th May, delivered in the case Hissène Habré v. Republique du Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/10 of 8th November de 2010, delivered in the case Mamadou Tandja v. Republique du Níger, and ECW/CCJ/RUL/05/11, delivered in the case Private Alimu AKeem v. Republic Federal of Nigeria.456 54. The Court also reiterated this position in the Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/13/19, delivered in case of Kareem Meissa Wade v. Republic do SENEGAL, § 95(3), that: 3 See the Judgment cited in the footnote 1, § 52. Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08 CCJ,RL, 2010, pag. 43, § 53-61 5 Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/05/09, CCJ,RL, 2011, pag. 105 ss. 6 Suit No ECW/CCJ/APP/03/09 CCJ,RL, 2011, pag. 121 ss. 4 14