15.
An examination of Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules as well as
the related provisions of the Protocol cited above shows that while the
Respondent is entitled to seize the Court, the Court cannot compel the
Respondent to seize it.
16.
The relationship between the Court and the Respondent is based on
complementarity. Therefore, the Court and the Respondent work as
independent yet mutually reinforcing partner institutions with the aim of
protecting human rights on the whole continent. Neither institution has the
mandate to compel the other to adopt any measures whatsoever.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously:
17.
Finds that, in terms of Article 3( 1). 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, it has no
jurisdiction to hear the case and dismisses the Application.
18.
Finds that pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules, the
Court cannot compel the Respondent to seize it.
In accordance with Article 28(7) of the Protocol and Rule 60(5) of the Rules , the
separate opinion of Judge Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ is appended to this Order.
Done at Arusha, this 2Q1h day of November in the year 2015, in English and French,
the English version being authoritative.
r-;/
Signed:
Augustine S. L. RAMADHANt, President
Elsie N. THOMPSON, Vice President
Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Judge
~
p ~ ~· /a~
1
~
[.)- ;;;
Sylvain ORE, Judge
Ben KIOKO, Judge
El Hadji GUISSE, Judge
4
~L
-'Cj M.•-"'.j""""(;'-3