VI 17. In light of the foregoing, it is my view that lhe Court ought to have spared itself issuing this Order and thus avoided delving into unnecessary considerations in order to dismiss Mr. Falana 's request (paragraphs 8-16). Ln acting as it did, the Court showed some inconsistency in its reasoning as it bad concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction ratione personae to entertain the request (paragraphs 7, 9 and 17), and yet had ruled on it, that is on the "merits" when it concluded that ''pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules, the Court cannot compel the Respondent to seize it". (paragraphs 15 and 18). 18. This latter conclusion is all the more inopportune as Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules to which the Court refers cannot be used as the legal basis for its conclusion that it cannot compel the Commission to refer the matter to it. 19. Although I do obviously subscribe to this latter conclusion of the Court, l am of the view that the only applicable provision in this case is Article 5 ( 1) of the Protocol. This provision does indeed allow the Commission to seize the Court; but it docs not compel it to do so. Thi s is evident in the French version of paragraph I of Article 5, worded as follows: "Ont qualite pour saisir Ia Cour [ ... ]". The English version of this provision is more straightforward as it states: ''The following are entitled to submU cases to the Court[ .. . ]" (emphasis added). On the basis of Article 5 (1) littera a) of the Protocol, the Commission is therefore wholly and fully free and independent and cannot in any manner be subject to an injunction from the Court. 20. Article 29 (3) lit/era c) of the Rules, wbich Mr. Fa lana refers to, can only apply in the circumstance where the Court is properly seized of an Application fil ed by the African Commission. * 2 1. Ultimately, the Court ought not to have dealt with Mr. Falana's request by way of judicial determination. Having opted for that line of action, it ought to have done so in a more straightforward manner and by avoidi ng to rule on lhe merits of thls request. 22. l wish to recall as a reminder that this is the fourth time that the African Court has dismissed by way of judicial determination "Applications" filed