the Court is referring to interpretation and application of human rights instruments ratified by the "States concerned." Similarly, Article 34(6) of the Protocol itself refers only to a "State Party". 64. Secondly, the Applicant submits that the African Union can be sued before the Court because it was the one which enacted and adopted the Protocol, as a corporate community on behalf of its Member States. 65. On its part, as mentioned earlier, the Respondent submits : - That the Protocol was not adopted by the African Union as such, but by its Member States, as evidenced in the preamble to the Protocol. - That the Respondent is not a party to the Protocol and that the Protocol in Article 34(6) talks about a State, and the African Union not being a state, cannot ratify the Protocol. - That the ratification of treaties by Member States of the African Union has never been ceded to the African Union by its Member States and that the African Union cannot be held liable for failure by the Member States to ratify the Protocol or to make the requisite declaration, and therefore, no case can be brought against it for obligations of Member States under the Charter and the Protocol in its corporate capacity. - That the African Union cannot assume obligations of sovereign Member States which have sovereign rights when ratifying the Protocol and making the declaration. 66. Concerning the Applicant's submission that the African Union can be sued before the Court, because it was the one which enacted and adopted the Protocol, the Court notes that the Protocol was adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union. The Court also notes however that the Protocol was agreed upon by the Member States of the African Union as is evidenced by the preamble of the Protocol which states as follows: "The Member States of the Organization of African Unity ... State Parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Have agreed as follows:" 67. In the practice of the African Union, although the adoption of treaties is done formally by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, their signature and ratification are still the exclusive prerogative of its Member States. This is confirmed, inter alia, by Article 34 (1) of the Protocol which provides that "it shall be open for signature and ratification or accession by any State Party to the Charter" (see also Article 63(1) of the Charter). Thus, in the view of the Court, the mere fact that the Protocol has been adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government does not establish that the African Union is a party to the Protocol and therefore can be sued under it. 68. Regarding the Applicant's contention that the African Union can be sued as a corporate community on behalf of its Member States, it is the view of the Court that, as an international organization, the African Union has a legal personality separate from the legal personality of its Member States. As the International Court of Justice stated in its Advisory Opinion on Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations: "It must be acknowledged that its Members [United Nations], by entrusting certain functions to it, with the attendant duties and responsibilities, have clothed it with the competence required to enable those functions to be effectively discharged. Accordingly, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Organization is an international person. That is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties are the same as those of a State. What it does mean is that it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties ... ."1 69. In this regard, however, in principle, international obligations arising from a treaty cannot be imposed on an international organization, unless it is a party to such a treaty or it is subject to such obligations by any 7