Article, for every action relating to human rights protection, cases before the Court must be filed by an individual or a corporate body who fulfils the requirement of being a victim. (See Judgment No.ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/11 of May 2011 in Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/09, CDD and CDHRD v. Mamadou Tandja v. Niger, paragraphs 27 and 28). As far as the texts of the Court are concerned, it is the essential criterion which enables one to declare whether an application for human rights violation is admissible, even though not an exclusive criterion.” 63. In contrast to the above decisions, in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, the Court gave decisions in which it held that, “individual” in Article 10(d) refers only to natural persons to the exclusion of other legal persons and that no corporate body can bring a human rights case as a Plaintiff, as an alleged victim of human rights abuse. In other words, that Article 10(d) of the Protocol on the Court as amended is not open to corporate bodies as victims of human rights abuse since it is only open to human beings. 64. In SERAP v. PRESIDENT OF FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2010) CCJELR, 231, this court held as follows: “Despite the campaign launched by advocacy organizations towards new developments, the bare truth, however, is that the process of codification of international Law has not yet arrived at a point that allows the claim against corporations to be brought before International Courts. Any attempts to do so have been dismissed on the basis that the Companies are not parties to the treaties that the international courts are empowered to enforce. This understanding is widely shared among regional courts with jurisdiction over Human Rights. That being the current situation at the international level, the only available alternative left to those seeking for justice against corporations has been domestic jurisdictions.” 65. Similarly in STACREST INVESTMENT LTD v. PRESIDENT ECOWAS COMMISSION, (2011) CCJELR, 165 the Court expressly held: “That no action could lie against a corporate body in human rights cases before this Court. By parity of reasoning, the converse of the decision just cited is equally true and that is, no corporate body can bring a human rights case before this Court as a Plaintiff as an alleged victim of 18