stay criminal proceedings brought against a citizen under the domestic criminal provisions in force at the time of the facts; that according to the case-law of this Court, the mere mention of international instruments for the protection of human rights is not sufficient to establish the Court's jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction often results from the examination of the application and that is why, when faced with an application, this Court has already delivered numerous judgments to this effect, declaring itself incompetent even though the Applicant had invoked legal instruments for the protection of human rights. 104. To substantiate its position the Respondent cited the ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/05 judgment of October 7, 2005, in the case HON. DR. JERRY UGOKWE v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND HON. DR. CHRITIAN OKEKE. The Applicant in turn, (Doc. 8) refuted the Respondent's arguments, reiterating the jurisdiction of this Court, stating that what is at issue is the alleged violation of his human rights.  106. In order to determine the jurisdiction of this Court, it is necessary to take into account both the legal texts governing its jurisdiction and the nature of the matter raised by the Applicant, based on the facts as alleged by the Applicant. 107. Therefore, it is from the analysis of the Applicant's application initiating proceedings that the Court verifies whether the matter falls within its jurisdiction. 108. In this sense, this Court ruled in the case BAKARY SARRE AND 28 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF MALI, Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11, in CCJRL 2011, pag. 67, §25, that: “The competence of the Court to adjudicate in a given 24