1 The States concerned must indeed be parties to the Protocol and, where necessary, must have
deposited the optional declaration.
2 For example see the approach followed by the International Court of Justice, which does not have either
compulsory jurisdiction, in its judgement of 11 July 1996 in the case relating to the Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Preliminary Objections, ICJ
Report 1996, pp. 609, 612, 613, 614 and 617, paragraphs 16, 23, 26, 27 and 34.
3 The expression "Etats intéressés" in the French version of Article 26 (1) of the Protocol is translated by
"States concerned" in the English version of the same provision.
4 To my knowledge, the European Union is the only non-State entity that could, in the near future, be
dragged before a human rights court; talks are indeed underway to allow the European Union to become
party to the European Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, be subject of complaints before the
European Court of Human Rights (see the website:
http://www.touteleurope.eu/fr/organisation/droit-communautaire/charte-des-droits-fondamentaux/presentation-copie
site consulted on 3 October 2011).
3