the Protocol, the Applicant would still not have been able to institute any cases directly to the Court, a fact that would render his Reference moot. 17. Further, that under Article 11(3) of the Treaty, it is the Summit that should review the state of good governance within the Community and Kenya has in any event adhered to the principles of good governance, rule of law, social justice and maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights and has taken constitutional steps to bind all State organs, State offices and Public offices and all other persons to the same standards. In that regard, reference has been made to Articles 2(5), 2(6) and 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya which provide for the place of general rules of International Law and Treaties in the Laws of Kenya as well as national principles of governance including good governance and human rights, respectively. Reference has also been made to decisions of the High Court of Kenya where the government has been held liable for past violations of human rights and the point made is that Kenya has a robust judicial system that is capable of granting justice for alleged violations of human rights and there is no urgent need for recourse to any other court system including the African Court. 18. On jurisdiction, the 3rd Respondent has urged this Court to decline the invitation to assume jurisdiction in matters involving the African Charter and the Protocol and to hold that Kenya’s discretion to deposit a declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol is not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. 19. Lastly, that since the Reference does not seek the annulment of any Act, regulation, directive, decision or action within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty as read with Rule 24 of this Court’s Rules of Procedure, it should be struck out with costs as against the 3rd Respondent. 13 | P a g e