× An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only
in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of
national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his
case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or
persons especially designated by the competent authority.
of the International Convention [sic] on Civil and Political Rights.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 34(1) of the Rules of Court, the Registrar, by letter dated 14 March
2012, acknowledged receipt of the application.
3. The Court first observes that in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol, it "may entitle relevant
Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission, and individuals to
institute cases directly before it, in accordance with article 34(6) of this Protocol".
4. The Court further notes that Article 34(6) of the Protocol provides that "At the time of the ratification of
this Protocol or any time thereafter, the State shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the
Court to receive cases under article 5(3) of this Protocol. The Court shall not receive any petition under
article 5(3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration".
5. By letter dated 30 March 2012, the Registrar inquired from the Legal Counsel of the African Union
Commission if the Republic of The Sudan has made the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the
Protocol.
6. By email dated 12 April 2012, the Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission informed the Registrar
that the Republic of The Sudan had not made such a declaration.
7. The Court observes that the Republic of The Sudan has not made the Declaration under Article 34(6).
8. In view of Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, it is evident that the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction
to receive the Application submitted on behalf of Amir Adam Timan, against the Republic of The Sudan.

Holding
9. For these reasons,

THE COURT,
Unanimously:
Decides that pursuant to Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to receive
the Application submitted on behalf of Amir Adam Timan, against the Republic of The Sudan, and the
Application is accordingly struck out from the general list of the Court.

Done at Arusha, the thirtieth day of March, in the year Two Thousand and Twelve, in English and
French, the English text being authoritative.

Signed:
Gerard NIYUNGEKO, President
Robed ENO, Registrar
In conformity with Article 28(7) of the Protocol and Rule 60(5) of the Rules of Court, Judge Fatsah
OUGUERGOUZ appended a separate opinion to the present decision.

2

Select target paragraph3