IV Court should have elaborated. For my part, I believe that the fact 1hat the issues raised relate to "genera l public international len~·" and "hierarchy of norms in Public interna tional Law·· in particular docs not necessarily mean that the said issues are alien to "human rights". 19. Indeed, the protection of human rights for which the Court is responsible under the Protocol is based on internat ional law and is by definition irrigated by that law. In more general terms, the whole issue of "human rights" is more and more imbibed by international law, in terms of subjects, sources, international responsibi lity and peacefu l scUiement of disputes. The question of human rights, like any other matter governed by international la w, is therefore likely to raise issues relating to the law of treaties in general and the hierarchy of international norms in particular. 20. Should the Court, for example, refrain from entertammg a request for advisory opi~tion relating to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, a reference instrument par excellence for the Court, on the grounds that such request raises questions or "genera l public international law" and "hierarchy of international norms" in particular? This question of course calls for a negative response. 21. It is therefore my view that the two main reasons advanced by the Court to dismiss that request (sec supra, paragraph 14), and the previous request, are insuf(icient and shou ld have been further elaborated. 22. The four concerned NGOs are as a matter of fact entitled to know for what specific reasons their request fa iled to meet the requirements set forth in Rule 68 of the Rules. 2 ln add ition to the right or the Authors of the request to be informed of the reasons for the dismissal or their request, there is also the question of the pedagogical virtues of the CourCs pronouncements and the need for the Court to inform potential authors of requests for advisory opinions of what exactly is expected of them. 23. In any event, the two reasons advanced by the Co urt (see supra, paragraph 14), in particul ar that "the issues raised by the Authors are of general public international law [hierarchy of international nom1s] and not o.flwma n rights". and the ~ See for example the reasons developed by lhe International Court or Justice european Court of I Iuman R1ghts lor dcclming their jurisdiction to provide the opinion of reqLICSted : Advisory opinion of ICJ of H July 1996 on tbc Legality of rhe Use by a State 2004 Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict and the decision of tbc t:::uropcan Court of 2 June opinion. advismy an on th~ Compete nce o(rhe Court to gtve