5
10. It is not however the case of the jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione
temporis of the Court even if the Respondent did not raised a formal
objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction; these objections were
indeed implicitly raised in the submissions on the Preliminary objections
to the admissibility of the Application from the
2nd
Applicant.
2) Material jurisdiction
11. ln its Brief in Response to the Application of the
2nd
Applicant, the
Respondent argues in its 3rd, 4Lh' and 5lh objections to the admissibility,
respectively, that the "Application contains provisions inconsistent with
Rule 26 (1) (a) of the Rules of Court ( ... ) and Article 7 of the Protocol
( ... )", that it is "relying on the Treaty establishing the East African
Community which was not in existence at the time the Applicant took the
Government of Tanzania to Court in 1993" and that "it is retrospective
with regard to the Protocol" (see also the Public Hearing of 14 June 2012,
Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 26, !ignes 36-37, p. 27, lines 1-9, and
p. 27, lines 15-26, respectively).
12. In support of its 3rd Preliminary objection, the Respondent argues that the
Treaty establishing the East African Community of 30 November 1999, is
not "a human rights instrument" within the meaning of Article 7 of the
Protocol and Rule 26 (1) (a) of the Rules of Court and that, as a result, "it
is extraneous to this case" (Paragraphs 19-20 of the Brief in Response;
see also the Public Hearing of 14 June 2012, Oral Hearing Verbatim
Record, p. 26, lines 19-20). Jn its Rejoinder, the
2nd
Applicant noted that