no representatives directing the affairs of the Committee. Tn any event, even if it was so composed, that would still not make it be considered as an intergovernmental organisation. 74. The Committee would bave to be expressly added to the list of entities entitled to bring cases under ArLicle 5 of the Protocol, or be determined to be an intergovernmental organisation in order to bring cases lo tho Court under that Article in its current form . Thus, even though the CW!dren's Charter under which it is established has States as "parties", the Committee as a body or organisation is not "intergovernmental" in the sense that it is not composed of government representatives. In addition, the Court is of the view that an organ cannot at the same time be an international organisation as the former would ordinarily be part of an organization whilst the latter lega11y stands on its own. Accordingly, ,the Committee cannot bring cases to the Cowt alleging violations of human or children's rights under Article 5 (1) (e) of the Protocol in U1e capacity of an 27 "intergovernmental" organisation. 75. In U1e Court's view, however, it is in the interests of protection of rights on the continent that the Committee's mandate should be reinforced just as the Afi·ican Commission's protective mandate is enhanced under the complementary relationship with U1e Court. Indeed, there docs not appear to be a conceivable reason why the Committee was not included among the organs that can bring cases before the Court under Article 5 (1) or lhe Protoc.ol, in order to give it the same reinforcement that the African Commission has under the complementary relationship with the Court. It should be noted that this apparent omission was subsequently addressed and included in Article 30(c) ofthe Protocol on the Statute 21 M Hansungute, 'African courts and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights", 251 . available at http://www.kas.de/upload/auslandshomepageslnantlbia/Human Rights In Arrlca/8 HansunguJe.pdr (Accessed on 28 March 2013). 21