SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FATSA H OUGUE RGOUZ 1. r am in agrcemt:nt with the views of my colleagues in regard to the conclusions reached by the Cou rt on the question of its ju risdiction and on that of the costs and expenses of the case, and consequently I have voted in favo r of lhe sa id conclusio ns. However, I belit:ve that these two issues deserved 10 be developed in a more comprehensive manner. 2. The Applicant indeed has the right to know why it has taken nearly one year between the date of receipt of his applicatio n at the Registry and the date on which the Court took its decision thereon. Senegal, on the other hand, has the right to know why the Cour1 chose to make a so ll!mn ruling on the application by means of a Judgment, rather than reject it de plano with a simple letter issued by the Registry. The two Parties aJso have the right to know the reasons for which their prayers in respect of the costs and expenses, respectively, o r the case, have been rejected; the Applicant shou ld also know why his prayer in this regard was addressed on the basis of Rule 30 of the Interim Rules of the Court (hereinafter re ferred to as lhe "Ruks") on Legal Costs, whereas the Court could have equally. if nol exc lusively, treated lhis f')rayer on lht! basis of Rule 31 on Legal Assistance. 3. However, only the qliCStion of 1he jurisdiction of the Court see ms to me to be sufficiently viral, to kad me to uppend to the Judgment, an expose of my st!parate opinion in regard to the manner in which this question should have·been treated b) the Court. . .. In the present case. the question of the jurisdiction of the Court is relatively simple. It is that of the Coun's ·'personal j urisdiction" or '1u ri sdiction ratione personae" in respect or applications brought by individua ls. This is governed by Article 5 (3) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Eslabl ishment of an African Court on Human and Peop les' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "Protocol") and Article 34 (6) of the stlld Protoco l which set forth the modalities by which a State shall accept the saki jurisdictio n. 4. 5. However, paragraph 3 1 of the Judgment states, not without ambiguity, that for !he Court to hea r a case brought directly by an individual against a State Party, there must be compliance with, inter alia, Article 5 (3) and Article 34 (6) of the Protocol. 6. I f the only issue referred to here is thai of rhe jurisdiction of the Court, tht:n the expression "mter alia'' introduces confusion because it lends itself to the understanding that the said jurisdiction is predicated on one or several other conditions that have not been spe lt out. However. in my view, there are no other conditions to the jurisd iction of the Court 111 the case than that which has b~en)Pecified in Article 34 (6) or the Protocol, reference to which was made in Article 5 (3)«