other means recognized under international law. 70. In the present case, the African Union is not a party to the Protocol, As a legal person, an international organization like the African Union will have the capacity to be party to a treaty between States if such a treaty allows an international organization to become a party. As far as an international organization is not a party to a treaty, it cannot be subject to legal obligations arising from that treaty. This is in line with Article 34 of the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations which provides: "A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State or a third organization without the consent of that State or that organization." (see also, Article 34 × General rule regarding third States A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent. of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). 71. Therefore, in the present case, the African Union cannot be subject to obligations arising from the Protocol unless it has been allowed to become a party to the Protocol and it is willing to do so, both of which do not apply. In the same vein, the mere fact that the African Union has a separate legal personality does not imply that it can be considered as a representative of its Member States with regard to obligations that they undertake under the Protocol. 72. It is therefore the opinion of the Court that the African Union cannot be sued before the Court on behalf of its Member States. 73. At this juncture, it is appropriate to emphasize that the Court is a creature of the Protocol and that its jurisdiction is clearly prescribed by the Protocol. When an application is filed before the Court by an individual, the jurisdiction of the Court ratione personae is determined by Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, read together, which require that such an application will not be received unless it is filed against a State which has ratified the Protocol and made the declaration. The present case in which the Application has been filed against an entity other than a State having ratified the Protocol and made the declaration, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application. 74. Since the Court has concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the Application, it does not deem it necessary to examine the question of admissibility of the Application and the merits of the case. 75. In view of the foregoing, THE COURT by a majority of seven votes to three: Holds that in terms ofArticles 5(3) and Article 34(6) of the Protocol, read together, it has no jurisdiction to hear the case instituted by Femi Falana, Esq. against the African Union. IN FAVOUR: President NIYUNGEKO; Judges MUTSINZI, GUINDO, OUGUERGOUZ, RAMADHANI, TAMBALA and ORE AGAINST: Vice-President AKUFFO; Judges NGOEPE and THOMPSON In accordance with Article 28(7) of the Protocol and Rule 60(5) of the Rules of Court, the separate opinions of Judges MUTSINZI and OUGUERGOUZ and the dissenting opinion of Vice-President AKUFFO and Judges NGOEPE and THOMPSON, are appended to this Judgment. Signed - Gerard NIYUNGEKO, President - Sophia A.B. AKUFFO, Vice-President - Jean MUTSINZI, Judge Bernard M. NGOE, Judge -Modibo T. GUINDO, Judge -Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Judge -Augustino S.L. RAMADHANI, Judge -Duncan TAMBALA, Judge -Elsie N. THOMPSON, Judge -Sylvain ORE, Judge - and Robert ENO, Registrar Done at Arusha, this twenty-sixth day of June in the year Two Thousand and Twelve in English and French, the English text being authoritative. 8