10. The Court recalls that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. 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 instruments ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 11. The Court further recalls that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”), it “shall conduct [a] preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 12. In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol, the jurisdiction of the Court extends to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of … relevant human rights instruments ratified by the States concerned. It also arises from Article 34(6) of the Protocol that applications to be received by the Court under Article 5 of the Protocol, should be filed against State Parties to the Protocol. It follows from these provisions that respondents in applications filed before this Court must be State Parties to the Protocol. 13. This interpretation is in accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence in Femi Falana v. Africa Union where the Court held that: “as far as an international organization is not a party to a treaty, it cannot be subject to legal obligations arising from that treaty. This is in line with Article 34 of the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations.”1 1 Femi Falana v. African Union (jurisdiction) (26 June 2012) 1 AfCLR 118, § 70. 4