74. It is true that Rule 34(4) of the Rules provide that the Application "shall specify the alleged violation". However, there is no insistence with regard to a formal indication in an application of the instrument from which the provision of the alleged violation is based. The Court therefore rules that reference by the Applicants to the Declaration to allege a violation has no effect on its jurisdiction as long as the alleged violation is also provided for by a treaty ratified by the State concerned . 75. The Court has the power to exercise its jurisdiction over alleged violations, in relation to the relevant human rig.hts protection instruments ratified by the Respondent. 76. The Court notes that all the rights alleged by the Applicants to have been violated by the Respondent, are guaranteed in the Charter, notably: the right not to be discriminated against (Article 2 and 3 ), the right to an effective remedy (Article 7), the right to work and fair remuneration (Article 15), the right to life and personal integrity (Article 4); and with respect to the International Covenant on Economic, Respondent Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which the ratified on 11 June 1976, the right to an adequate standard of living is guaranteed under Article 11 . 77. The Court therefore rules that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear the case and overrules the Respondent's objection to its jurisdiction . 25