stated that, the provisions of Article 9(4) was correctly relied upon, by extension. Article 9(3) of the said Protocol is also applicable. 28. The next point is the caveat to Article 9(3) of the Protocol and the fact that the action accrued in the instant case, in Apri1 2004 and the case was lodged in October 2007. Six months after the limitation period of 3 years as stated therein. The Court holds that where the issue is as to limitation of time for taking a step as contained in the Rules of the Court. The court has the power to extend time within which to do any such thing required to be done. However, where the limitation of time is imposed in the statute like it is in Article 9(3) of the said Protocol. The subject matter of jurisdiction is called to question and unless the statute makes provision for the extension of time, the court cannot extend time. See Akinnuoye v. Mil. Administrator Ondo State, (1997) INWLR (pt) 483 p 564 at 572 paragraphs E-H. 30. However, the salient point arising from the above is on the question of human rights, and whether such alleged violation can be subject to statute of limitation of action/ time. The research on the point produced the finding that the Statute of limitation would apply to Human rights cases except in respect of gross violation of rights which the violation in the instant case cannot be so characterized. This Court made reference to the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of International Human Rights Law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law which was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly Resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005 that the Statutes of limitation, shall not apply to gross violations of international human rights law and/or serious violations of International humanitarian law. 31. The Court is in no doubt as stated above, in the instant case, that, the violation of free movement as alleged in this application, if proved cannot fall within the realm of gross violations of human rights as described in Resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, mentioned above. On the above analysis the Court finds that the applicant even though alleged the violation of human rights, is caught by the provision of Article 9(3) of the Protocol on the Court which is applicable in this 13