b) Material jurisdiction 47.Article 3(1) of the Protocol provides that "the jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the State concerned". 48. The Court has already noted that the Respondent State is a Party to the Charter on Human Rights and the Protocol. It notes also that the Respondent State became a Party to the Covenant on 26 March 1992, the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol on 31 July 2013, and to the African Charter on Democracy on 28 November 2013. 49. The Court however also has to satisfy itself that these two instruments, namely: the African Charter on Democracy and the Democracy Protocol, are human rights instruments within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol. 50. The Court recalls that it sought the opinion of the African Union Commission and the African Institute for International Law on this issue. 51. The African Union Commission points out that the objectives of the African Charter on Democracy as spelt out in Article 2 (1) thereof include, to "promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights"; that by Article 3 (1) of the same Charter, State Parties undertake to implement it in accordance with the principles of "respect for human rights and democratic principles"; that as per Article 4 of the Charter on Human Rights, State Parties commit themselves to promote democracy, the principle of the rule of law and human rights and recognize popular participation through universal suffrage as the inalienable right of the people; that furthermore, as per Article 6, State Parties shall ensure that citizens enjoy 13