has alleged facts that in his view constitute violations of the said articles protecting human rights. 117. It should be highlighted once again that the mere allegation of a violation of human rights is sufficient to trigger the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court will assume its jurisdiction without necessarily examining the veracity of the allegation. 111. Therefore, considering the facts alleged and the claims made by the Applicant, the grounds for the present action is the claim of violation of human rights, allegedly committed in the territory of the Respondent State, guaranteed by legal instruments for the protection of human rights, namely, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, ratified by ECOWAS Member States, such as the Respondent State, and which therefore bind them and impose on them the duty to respect and protect the rights proclaimed therein. (See the case AMOUZOU HENRI et 5 AUTRES v. RÉPUBLIQUE DE COTE D'IVOIRE, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/09, of 17th December, Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/01/09 in LRCCJ, 2009, pág. 296, parag. 58 a 61). 119. Therefore, since the requirements of Article 9 (4) of Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court, as amended by Additional Protocol A/SP.1/01/05, are met, the Court understands that it entertains jurisdiction to adjudicate on the instant case. XI – ADMISSIBILITY 120. The admissibility of the application initiating proceedings is governed by the provisions of Article 10 (d), of Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court as amended by Additional Protocol A/SP.1/01/05, cited above, which provides that: 27