12) With regard to costs and expenses) grant lhe Applicant the benefit ofji·ee proceedmgs. 11 24. In its statement of defence, Senegal for its part submitted inter alia, ilia l for the Court Lo be able to deal with applications brought b_v mdivtduals. "the respondent State must first have recognized the jurisdicuon of lhC' Court to receive such applications 111 accordance wiU1 Article 34 (6) of the Protocol establishing l he Court" . 1 25. Jn Lhis regard , Sent"gaJ "strongly asserted that it did not make any such dccluratwn accepting the jwisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples' J~ights to deal with applications brought by ind iv1d uals~. 26 .. \lt<'rn<-nivcly . Sene-gal averrecl thR t the Applicant "was wrong to meddJ c in a mnttC'r that is thC' cxclusiv<.:.: concern of Senegal, Hissein Habn~ and the victims" as pt>r the ob11gal'ions arising from the Convention against Tor111rr; and lhat it does not see any "justification for legitimatt: interest on Lhe pcu·L of the Applicant to bring t.he case against the Republic of Senegal". 27. In adciJLion. Senegal denied the allegations made by the Appl1cant m rrgard to the '·purported violation [by it] of the principle of non - retroactivity of crimmal law", and the ''purported violation or r\l'ricHn Union mandaLc" of July 2006. 28 . ln conclusio11, Senegal prn.ved lhc Court Lo: "On mntters of procedure: Rule Uwt Senegal has not made a declaration uccepfl11g fh(:' jun'sdictron of lhe Court lo hear upplic:ufwns submitted by indwiduals,· .J,k Hu/e tlw£ lhe Applicun l has no interest lo't-J lflstirwe ll1e applicotinn; Therefore, declare madnusstble. ~/ /\W \ th~ the application is (~ 7~ '-~-~ }~