7.
The Court notes that while the facts giving rise to the Application make reference
to alleged violations of human rights in Burundi, the Applicant has filed the
Application against the Respondent, an entity which is not a State Party to the
Charter or Protocol.
8.
The Court further notes that the Applicant has filed the Application in his
personal capacity against the Respondent. Pursuant to Article 5(3) and Article
34(6) of the Protocol, applications can only be brought to the Court by
Individuals where the State against which the application is filed has deposited
a declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
9.
Considering that the Respondent is not a State Party to the Charter and has not
filed a declaration pursuant to Article 34(6), the Court finds that the Applicant
has no standing to bring the Application against the Respondent in terms of
Article 5(3) and Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
10.
In bringing this Application, the Applicant has also relied on Rule 29 of the Rules.
Further, the Applicant states that the Communication initiated before the
Respondent was brought under Rules 84(2) and 118(3)(4) (sic) of the Rules of
Procedure of the Respondent.
11 .
Rule 29 of the Rules which should be read together with Article 2 and 8 of the
Protocol , guide the relationship between the Court and the Respondent.
12.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol, the Court shall complement the protective
mandate of the Respondent bearing in mind the provisions of the Protocol.
13.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Protocol, the Court shall lay down the detailed
conditions under which the Court shall consider cases brought before it, bearing
in mind the complementarity between the Respondent and the Court.
14.
Further, pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) of the Protocol, the Respondent is entitled to
submit cases before the Court, while under Article 6(3), the Court may transfer
cases to the Respondent.
3