AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE ~J~' JbJ~\ UNIAO AFRICANA AFRiCAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES1 RJGRTS COUR AFRICAIN£ DES DROITS DE LiHOMME ET DES PEUPLES Urban Mkandawire v. The Republic of Malawi (Application No. 00 1/2013) Separate Opinion of Judge Fatsab Ouguergouz I. Even though I subscribe to the conclusions reached by the Court concerning the inadmissibility of the appbcations for interpretation and review of its judgment of 21 June 2013, filed by Mr. Urban Mkandawire, I do not entirely share the reasoning adopted to arrive at these conclusions and would like to explain why. I - Concerning tbe application for interpretation 2. ln paragraph 6 of the present judgment, the Court notes. and rightly so, that in tenus of Rule 66 ( 1) of the Rules, any party may request the Court to give an inteJ]Jretation "for the purpose of executing a judgment", and that. in the instant case, the j udgment for which interpretation is sought, bas declared that the application is Lnadmissible for failure of exhaustion local remedies by the Applicant. The Court then points out that the judgment in question imposesno obligation capab le of being executed and concludes that the application for interpretation is not possible in terms of the relevant provisions of the Protocol and the Rules. In my opinion, that is what would bave been enough to say on the matter. 3. The Court however deemed it necessary to consider whether a second condition under Rule 66 of the Rules was met, that is to say that the application shal1 ••state clearly the point or points in the operative provisions of the judgment on whk h interpretation is required". 4.ln that regard, the Court notes thatthe application is, on lhe contrary, "generally incoherent and incomprehensible", and concludes that tl1e nine 1 "points"mentioned by the Applicant can never be points for intcrprctation. ln