8. It emerges from a combined reading of the above-mentioned
provisions that direct access to the Court by an individual is subject to
the making of a special declaration by the Respondent State,
authorizing such an access.
9. By letter dated 10 June, 2011, the Registrar of the Court wrote to the
Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission, to find out whether
the Respondent State had made the declaration required under
Article 34 (6) of the Protocol.
10. By a memorandum dated 13 June, 2011 , the Legal Counsel of the
African Union Commission informed the Court that the Respondent
State had not made such a declaration.
11 . On this basis, the Court concludes that Algeria has not accepted the
Court's jurisdiction to receive applications directly from individuals
and non-governmental organizations filed against her. Consequently,
it is clear that the Court manifestly does not have jurisdiction to
receive the application .
12.
Article 6 (3) of the Protocol provides that the Court may consider
cases or transfer them to the Commission. The Court notes that in
view of the allegations contained in the application, it would be
appropriate to transfer the case to the African Commission on Human
and Peoples' Rights.
4