51. The Court notes that the Respondent is a State Party to the Protocol having deposited its instrument of ratification on 6 June 2003. The Respondent also deposited its Declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 22 June 2013. 52. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 3(1) it is empowered to interpret and apply the ProtocoL Further, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Protocol, in the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. Therefore, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction in this matter regarding the withdrawal of the declaration by the Respondent B. 53. Whether the Respondent's withdrawal is valid It is not in dispute that the Protocol does not contain provisions for denunciation of the Protocol or withdrawal of the declaration under Article 34(6). Similarly, the Charter does not contain any provisions for denunciation. The Applicant, in her submission argues that in the absence of express provisions in the Protocol for withdrawal, the Vienna Convention applies. The Coalition shares the same opinion. The Respondent made no arguments on this. 54. Regarding the applicability of the Vienna Convention in the instant matter, the Court notes that while the declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) emanates from the Protocol which is subject to the law of treaties, the declaration itself is a unilateral act that is not subject to the law of treaties. The Court therefore holds that the Vienna Convention does not apply to the declaration under Article 34(6) of the ProtocoL 55. In dealing with whether the Respondent's withdrawal is valid, the Court is guided by relevant rules governing declarations of recognition of jurisdiction as well as the international law principle of state sovereignty. 13