 That the limitation on assembly and association in Edo State is overly broad and vague and that the ban of their activities is not specific with a precise nature of assembly and not limited to a duration necessary to achieve any legitimate aim.  In conclusion the Applicants submit that the Respondent violated their right to freedom of association and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 respectively of the African Charter. They claim the reliefs in paragraph 17 (i-iv) Supra. Analysis of the Court 40.Ahead of analyzing the substantive rights allegedly violated by the Respondent, the Court considers it expedient to first address the raison d’etre for making the Federal Government of Nigeria the Respondent in this matter where the alleged human rights violation was carried out at the behest of the Government of Edo State. 41.In addressing this issue, the Court recalls that it has in a plethora of cases reiterated the principle of state responsibility under international law whereby a State Party to international human right instruments is held responsible for the violation of the rights of its citizens by the conduct of any of its organ empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority. Such organ having acted in that capacity, shall be considered as an act of the State under international law even if, in the particular case, the organ exceeded its competence according to internal law or contravened instructions concerning its activity. See TIDJANE KONTE & ANOR V. REPUBLIC OF GHANA (2014) CCJELR PAGE 131, PARAGRAPH 38. 42.This principle was further expatiated by the Court when it held that“…a Member State as an abstract entity must necessarily act through its organs 15