c) Whether the facts claimed by the Applicant constitute a violation of the right of freedom of expression of its mentioned members, associates and employees guaranteed by the provisions of Articles 1 and 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the African Charter on Human Rights and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; d) Consequently, whether the Defendant State must be ordered to: i) Remove from its legislation the provisions of Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015; ii) Not continue to give effect to the provisions of Section 24 of the aforementioned Law; ANALYSIS BY THE COURT a) On the Jurisdiction: 47. This Court ruled in its Ruling No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/13 of 6 November 2013, in the case. Chude MBA v. Republic Of Ghana, that “1To determine if the action is admissible the Court has to determine if the subject matter is within the competence of the Court, if the parties can access the Court and if parties have the requisite standing to institute the action.” 48. Therefore, in order to determine whether this Court has or not jurisdiction, account must be taken of the legal texts governing its jurisdiction, as well as the nature of the question brought before it by the Applicant, based on the facts as alleged by the Applicant. 49. In this sense, this Court ruled in its Judgment No ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11 of 17th March 2011, issued in the case of Bakary Sarre and 28 Ors v. Republic Of Mali,2 where it stated as follows: “The competence of the Court to adjudicate in a given case depends not only on its texts but also on the substance of the initiating application. The Court accords every attention to claims made by applicants, the pleas-in-law invoked, and in an instance where human rights violation is alleged, the Court equally carefully considers 1 Case ECW/CCJ/APP/09/09 (see CCJ, RL, 2011, page 67, §25). 349, §51. Case ECW/CCJ/APP/09/09 (see CCJ, RL, 2011, page 67, §25). 67,§25. 2 13