31.As indicted in paragraphs 29 and 30 (supra), the first Applicant is a legal person suing on their own behalf and claiming relief for themselves for the sum of $500,000 as compensation “for general damages and/or exemplary damages for the unlawful denial of the rights to association and assembly of the Applicants” (Emphasis provided). The principle of representative action in human rights violation envisages that an action instituted on behalf of another does not confer any benefit to the representative applicant from the relief granted under these circumstances. The relief sought above is to compensate all the Applicants which includes the first. Clearly the first Applicant has not demonstrated a representative capacity in the instant application. 32.Consequently, the Court holds that the first Applicant not being an individual but a legal person and not falling within the established exceptions, nor suing in a representative capacity is not a proper party to file an action for the violation of their right to association and to assembly. The application of the first Applicant in this regard is declared inadmissible and is therefore hereby struck out. 33.With regards to the second to fourth Applicants who are individuals, having alleged the violation of their right to association and to peaceful assembly which is in consonance with Article 10 and 11 of the Charter, the Court admits the Application and will procced to determine same on the merits. The second to fourth Applicants will hereinafter be referred to as the “Current Applicants” 34.In respect of the second and third requirements for admissibility, the Court holds that the Application is admissible as it is in compliance with Article 10 (d) (i) and (ii) of the Protocol, having found that it is neither anonymous 12