DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES Applicable Rules and Principles of Interpretation 23. The Treaty, as has been stated previously by this Court, is an International Treaty and subject to International Law of Treaties and specifically Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which has set out the general rule in the interpretation of treaties as, that: a) a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith and b) in accordance with the ordinary meaning to the terms of the Treaty in their context, and c) in the light of the object and purpose of the Treaty. 24. We shall apply the above principles in determining the issues framed above and in addition, we shall be guided by, and remain faithful to the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Treaty. Issue No.1: Whether this Court has Jurisdiction to entertain the Reference 25. The objection made by the Respondents jointly and severally on this issue is that because the Applicant’s complaint is principally premised on the question whether the Respondents’ delay in depositing declarations pursuant to Article 34(6) of the Protocol, then this Court has no jurisdiction over the dispute and that the proper forum to resolve it is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights through the African Commission. If that be so, then the issue of jurisdiction is one that this Court has on more than a dozen occasions addressed - see for example Mtikila & Others vs Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania Ref. No.2 of 2007. But what is the meaning that we shall attribute to “jurisdiction” in the context of the issue at hand? We agree with counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the 16 | P a g e