derogated from Article 1 of the Charter.
35. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Charter (the right to freedom from discrimination), the
Applicant contends that, unlike nationals of States that have made the declaration, he cannot drag his
country to the African Court on account of human rights violations, and that, by denying him access to the
Court, his right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of his national origin has been violated.
36. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Charter (right to a fair hearing), the Applicant
maintains that, by limiting access to the Court to the making of a declaration by Member States of the
Respondent, his right to have complaints of human rights violations heard and determined by the Court has
been violated.
37. Regarding the alleged violation of Article13(3) of the Charter (the right of access to public property and
services in strict equality of all persons before the law), the Applicant states that, it is not in dispute that the
Court is a public property to which every individual shall have the right of access in strict equality of all
persons. He therefore submits that by denying access to the Court to persons whose countries of origin
have not made a declaration to accept the competence of the Court, his right to access a public property in
strict equality of all persons before the law has been violated without any legal justification.
38. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 26 of the Charter (duty of State Parties to guarantee the
independence of the Courts), the Applicant avers that by basing the jurisdiction of the Court on the
Respondent's Member States' discretion to accept such jurisdiction, the Respondent has compromised the
Court's independence.
39. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 66 of the Charter (the power to adopt special protocols or
agreements to supplement the provisions of the Charter), the Applicant states that, in supplementing the
provisions of the Charter, any protocol, like the Protocol on the Court, can only enhance the rights
guaranteed in the Charter, and that any provision of a supplementary protocol which derogates from the
provisions of the Charter shall be declared null and void by the Court.
40. In conclusion; In his prayer in the Application, the Applicant asks for:
"a. A declaration that Article 34(6) of the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Court is illegal, null
and void as it is inconsistent with Article 1, 2, 7, 13, 26 and 66 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights.
b. A declaration that the Applicant is entitled to file human rights complaints before the African Court by
virtue of Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
c. An order annulling Article 34(6) of the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Court forthwith."
In his Reply to the Respondent's response, the Applicant concludes as follows:
"15. In the light of the foregoing, the Applicant avers that the Respondent has no reply to the Applicant's
claim. The reliefs sought by him ought to be granted by this Honourable Court.
16. In view of this Reply the Applicant avers that the Respondent has no defence whatsoever to the claim
of the Applicant."
In his oral submissions, the Applicant prays the Court:
"... to hold that this case is well founded; it is properly constituted and therefore to grant the relief sought by
the Applicant, by annulling Article 34(6) of the Protocol so that all victims of human rights violations in the
African continent can access this Court in the interest of justice and fair play."
4