*
46. In his Response, the Applicant maintains that, in his Application, he has invoked
those provisions of the Charter that have been violated as well as the principles enshrined
in the OAU Charter as prescribed in Articles 5 and 34 (6) of the Protocol and Rule 33 of
the Rules of Court.
47. At the Public Hearing and as indicated above (supra, para 31) , Counsel for the
Applicant argued that the Court was competent as long as the rights , violation of which is
alleged , are guaranteed by the Charter and any other applicable human rights instrument.
*
48. As regards what the Respondent considers as erroneous invocation of the Articles
of the Protocol on which the jurisdiction of the Court is grounded, the Court recalls that
it had already disposed of this issue (supra, para 33) and does not therefore need to
revert to it.
49. On the argument that the Applicant allegedly did not cite the relevant Articles of the
Constitutive Act of the African Union, and of the Charter, the Court reaffirms that that
situation does not render it incompetent to examine the Applications, nor does it make the
said Application inadmissible.
50. The Court notes that what is important for an Application to be compatible with the
Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter is that, in their substance, the
violations alleged in the Application are susceptible to be examined by reference to
provisions of the Constitutive Act and/or the Charter and are not manifestly outside the
scope of Application of these two instruments.
8
See supra, note 6.
18