by the of the African Cowi of Justic e and Huma n Rights adopte d in 2008 direct Assem bly of the Union at Sharm el Sheikh, which grants the Comm ittee access to the Court. n The Court notes that the mandate of the Committee and the Africa except Comm ission under their respective consti tuent treaties are broadly similar, 76. Court that the former specialises in children's rights and welfare. Never theles s, lhe the finds that its hands are tied by the protocol and therefore canno t grant the Comm ittee standi ng to access the Court that bas not been accord ed to it under consti tuent instrument and the Protocol. Consi dering that the third and fourth limb of the request of the Comm ittee uction are interre lated in U1at they rest on the contention that the best tool Cor constr the two of a legal instru ment is purpo sive interpretation, the Cowi wi II deal wi tb 77. limbs together, namel y: c) 'Whet her Article 5 (1) (e) should be interpreted 111 line with the manda tes ofthe Africa n Court and the Committee; d) Wheth er the standi ng of the Comm ittee before the Court under Article 5 (1) (e) of the Protoc ol is in line with the object and purpose of the Court Protocol'. Pursu ant to Article 3 of the Court Protocol, the juriscliction of the Court n and 1 extend s to all cases and disputes submi tted to it conce rning lhe interpretatio 78. rights applic ation of the Charter, this Protoc ol and any other releva nt human instru ment ratified by the states conce rned,. 22