II comply with the requirements laid down m the Rule. The request shou ld therefore not have been registered in the general list since the aforesaid requirements had not been met, and il is by a Jetter from the Registrar that the Authors of the request should have been notified. 5. Or that the request was "in due and proper form", i.e., conditions prescribed by Rule 68 (2), in which case it registered in the Court's general list, been transmitted mentioned in Rule 69 of the Rules, and gone through a process pursuant to Rules 70 to 73 of the Rules. that it fulfilled the should have been to all the entities thorough judicial 6. ln my opinion , there is no middle way. lf, as the Court observed in its Order, the request "did not comply with the requirements under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court", the said request should have been given a purely admin isLraLive treatment and rejected by a simple letter from the Registrar. 7. 1 therefore recommend that, in future, only requests for advisory opinion that fulfill the conditions of formal va lidity set forth in the Protocol and in the Rules of Court should be registered on the general list. Only the requests that contain all the informalion required to determine the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain them, shall be deemed to fulfill the said conditions. 8. Under Article 4 (I) of the Protocol and Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, the advisory jurisdiction of the Court is subject to four t.:und ilions: 1) the request lor advisory opinion shall emanate from an entity entitled to do so, 2) it shall be on a legal matter, 3) it shall relate to the African Charter or any other international human rights instrument, and 4) its subject matler shall not relate to an application pending before the African Commission. II - Response to tbc request 9. The request for advisory opinion registered in the general list under No 00 J/2014 was struck off by Order of the Court dated 5 June 20 15 on the dual reason that it djd not meet 01e conditions laid down in Rule 68 (2) of the Rules and that the Authors had not shown interest in continuing with the procedure. 10. On 1st July 2015, the four concerned Non-GovernmenLal Organizations requested a re-listing of the request on the general list. providing copy of the correspondence that they had addressed to the Couti on 15 November 20 14 but which clearly never reached the Registry. 11 . In the present Order, the Court justified its refusa l to re-lis1 Lhe request with two reasons: to wit, that: