The Committee therefore submits that as an organ of lhe AU, it has the locus standi to bring a request for an advisory opinion before the Court as provided 49. under Article 4( I) of the Court Protocol, acLing within lhe framew ork of the AU. Observa tions submi tted by States and other entities As already indicated above, the Membe r States that responded to the Reques t, namely, Kenya, Senegal and Gabon, all of them suppor ted the request by 50. the Committee in all its aspects. On its part, the Commission argued that the Committee was entitled to reques t for an Advisory Opinion as an "African Organization", but not as an organ 51 . of the Union, within the meaning of Article 4(1) oflbe Protocol. Consideration of the issue by the Court 52. Article 4 (l) of the Protocol establishing the Court reads as follows: 'At lhe request of a Memb er State of the OAU, the OAU, any of its organs, or any African organization recognized by the OAU, the Court may provide an opinion on any legal matter relating to the Chruier or any other relevant human rights instruments, provided that U1c subject matter of the opinion is not related to a matter being examined by the African Comm ission' . In the view of the Court, the provisions of Article 4 ( J) of the Protocol implies the need for the Court to determine whether the Committee is an organ of 53. the Union or an African organization recognised by the AU. 14