African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which are recognised by the Community and to which the Member States are signatory, in line with the laws, practices and national policies of the Member States. Consequently, even if formally, the source of the human rights cases triable before the Community Court is the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the international instruments, such human rights may substantially be considered as analogous to the fundamental human rights recognised and guaranteed by the Constitution of each Member State and vice-versa. 17. In this light, the Court notes that Articles 34, 35, 36, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of Nigeria sanctions respectively: (1) the right to human dignity (2) the right to personal liberty (3) the right to fair trial (4) the right to free movement (5) the right to non-discrimination. The Court equally notes that Articles 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights sanctions respectively : (i) the inviolability of human beings and the prohibition to deprive same arbitrarily (ii) the right to respect for human dignity inherent in human beings and the recognition of legal status (iii) the right to liberty and security of person and the circumstances within which those rights may be curtailed, and finally (iv) the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence. 18. The Court notes finally that the Applicant essentially alleges violation of his right to liberty and freedom of movement contained mutatis mutandi in Articles 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, and that he also alleges violation of his right to life and human dignity, sanctioned mutatis mutandi by Article 34 of the said Constitution. Thus, the human rights violations alleged before the Nigerian judge are essentially the same as the human rights allegations brought before the Honorable Court. Besides, the Applicant pleads before the Honorable Court, his release and the payment of Ten Million Naira as damages, requests which have equally been granted by the Nigerian judge. 19. The Court therefore deduces from the foregoing, that the Application brought by Mr. Aliyu Tasheku is essentially the same as the one filed before the Nigerian judge, which subject-matter has already been dealt with and which outcome the Applicant neither contested nor considered to be dissatisfactory since he did not appeal the judgment before any Nigerian 7