* 32. The Court notes that its jurisdiction is an issue of law which it has to determine on its own regardless of whether or not the issue is raised by the Parties in a case. It therefore follows that the fact that a Party cited provisions that are not applicable is of no consequence , because at any rate, the Court shall rule according to the law and is in a position to ground its jurisdiction on the appropriate provisions. 33. Furthermore, in the instant case , invoking Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol to ground the jurisdiction of the Court is not even incorrect. Article 5(3) of the Protocol provides that: "the Court may entitle relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission to institute cases directly before it in accordance with Article 34(6) of this Protocol". Article 34(6) of the Protocol provides that "at any time of the ratification of this Protocol or any time thereafter, the State shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases under Article 5(3) of this Protocol" and that "the Court shall not receive any petition under Article 5(3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration". While these two articles, read together, show that they effectively relate to the seizure of the Court by individuals and NGOs, and hence to the question of access to the Court, it is also true that these provisions at the same time address the question of the personal jurisdiction of the Court as far as both the Applicant and the Respondent State are concerned. Indeed, the said Articles also, in the final analysis, determine whether or not the Court is competent in respect of the individuals or NGOs that have brought cases before it or whether or not in the instant case the Respondent State has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. The wording of Article 34(6) of the Protocol is significant in this respect as it speaks of a "declaration accepting the competence of the Court". 34. It is important to point out that Article 3(1) of the Protocol 5 to which the Respondent State makes reference , addresses essentially the material jurisdiction of the Court, which 5 This Article provides as follows: "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 ~ human rights instrument ratifies by the States concerned'. _b 14 ~j}v ~~o· jt c; ~«-