70. It is the opinion of this Court that, if Article 10 (c) (English and French Texts) categorically includes both individual and corporate bodies, same would have been repeated in 10 (d) if that was the intention of the drafters of the law. The Court therefore affirms that it is not the intention of the statute to accommodate corporate legal person in Article 10 (d) of both versions of the text. 71. In order to harmonise the prior inconsistent decision of the Court as highlighted above, this Court in the exercise of its inherent power hereby departs from all decision wherein corporate body are accommodated under Article 10 (d) of the 1991 Protocol on the Court as amended by the Supplementary Protocol 2005; and affirms only individuals have access for Human Rights violation except in internationally accepted conditions. 72. The Court having decided that Article 10 (d) anticipates only natural person, it is nonetheless not unmindful of its jurisprudence and that of other International Courts creating exception and granting corporate bodies’ access to ground an action of violation of their fundamental Rights against a member state. Human rights imply the rights that belong to all human beings irrespective of their nationality, race, caste, creed and gender amongst others; like right to life, right to health and right against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment which are specific to a human being. On the other hand right of a corporate body, are rights that are fundamental and necessary for the existence of a corporate body which a legal entity can enjoy and be deprived of; for example right to freedom of speech as the corporation is entitled to speak about its product; right to property as the corporation generates profit in shares and, or cash and is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of same. The established exceptions under which corporate bodies can ground an action are; rights that are fundamental rights not dependant on human rights and they include right to fair hearing, right to property and right to freedom of expression. 73. In OCEAN KING NIGERIA LIMITED V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/11; the Court held that: “The right to fair hearing is not dependent on human rights and the Defendant owes an obligation to every ECOWAS citizen or entity to ensure fair hearing within its territory, failing which this Court will have the right to entertain an application by an aggrieved party even if it is based on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.” 20