67. It further emphasized in this Judgment that: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and full enjoyment of this right is central to achieving individual freedoms and to developing democracy. It is not only the cornerstone of democracy but indispensable to a thriving civil society. Having reiterate the courts´competence on human rights cases, it therefore implies that this court in exercising its jurisdiction, has the powers to go into root of the violation i.e., those laws which the applicants are contesting to stablish whether or not they are contrary to the provisions of international human right laws on freedom of expression.” 68. The Court thus concludes that it is competent to examine a law of the Member State under which an allegation of human rights violation falls. On the Admissibility 69. In terms of access to the Court, the Article 10 of the same Protocol establishes that “Can access the Court (...) d) Anyone who is a victim of human rights violations. The request submitted for this purpose: i) must not be anonymous; ii) will only be submitted to the Community Court of Justice if it has not been submitted to another Competent International Court (...)” 70. That is, to justify an action regarding the violation of human rights, it is necessary that the applicant is a victim, and that the Defendant State is responsible for the alleged violations. (See, among others, Ruling No. ECW/CCJ/RUL/03/14, delivered in the case, The Registered Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project (SERAP) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor and Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/19 of February 26th, 2019, in this case Rev. Fr. Solomon MFA & 11 Ors v. Federal Republic of Nigeria) 71. Therefore, the essential criterion for human rights claims is that the applicant is a victim of the violation of human rights, while it is up to him to prove his locus standi in 17