4
1) Persona/jurisdiction
6. Article 3 of the Protocol, entitled "Jurisdiction", deals with the general
jurisdiction of the Court, whereas Article 5, entitled "Access to the
Court" , deals specifically with the personal jurisdiction of the Court.
Though they are different in form, the issues of the "jurisdiction" of the
Court and "access" to the Court are closely related in the context of the
Protocol. The Court's jurisdiction is also treated under Article 34 (6) of
the Protocol, to which makes reference Article 5 (3) mentioned above.
7. Articles 5 (3) and 34 (6) of the Protocol, read together, show that direct
access to the Court by an individual or a non-governmental organization
is subject to the deposit by the Respondent State of a special declaration
authorizing such access.
8. Jn the instant case, the Court has first ensured that the Respondent State is
one of the State Parties to the Protocol which have made the declaration
under Article 34 (6). As the 151 Applicants are two non-governmental
organizations, the Court has similarly ensured that they enjoyed an
observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights. The Court has then concluded that, these two cumulative
conditions being met, it has jurisdiction ratione personae to deal with the
two Applications.
9. The issue of the jurisdiction ratione loci of the Court was not raised by
the Respondent and there can be no dispute in that regard considering the
nature of the violations alleged by the Applicants. The Court did not
therefore need to consider the issue of its jurisdiction ratione loci.