74. It is true that Rule 34(4) of the Rules Application “shall specify the alleged violation’. provide that the However, there is no insistence with regard to a formal indication in an application of the instrument from which the provision of the alleged violation is based. The Court therefore rules that reference by the Applicants to the Declaration to allege a violation has no effect on its jurisdiction as long as the alleged violation is also provided for by a treaty ratified by the State concerned. 75. The Court has the power to exercise its jurisdiction over alleged violations, in relation to the relevant human rights protection instruments ratified by the Respondent. 76. The Court notes that all the rights alleged by the Applicants to have been Charter, violated by the Respondent, guaranteed in the notably: the right not to be discriminated against (Article 2 and 3), the right to an effective remedy and are fair remuneration (Article 15), (Article 7), the right to work the right to life and personal integrity (Article 4); and with respect to the International Covenant on Economic, Respondent Social and ratified on Cultural 11 June Rights 1976, (ICESCR) the which right to an the adequate standard of living is guaranteed under Article 11. 77. The Court therefore rules that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear the case and overrules the Respondent's objection to its jurisdiction. RB Ne ° A 2B SY