9 On issue No.6, the First Instance Division held that the answer to issue No.3 (cause of action) was sufficiently disposed of this particular issue. 10 On issue No.7, the First Instance Division held that each Party should bear its own costs. 11 Accordingly, the First Instance Division dismissed the Reference; and ordered each Party to bear its own costs. 12 Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the First Instance Division, the Appellant appealed to this Appellate Division. 13 The Appellant raised 9 grounds of Appeal which, at the Scheduling Conference were consolidated into the following 5 issues:- (i) Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that it had no jurisdiction to interpret the Charter, the Protocol, and other relevant international conventions and instruments to which the 2nd ,3rd and 5th Respondents are parties; (ii) Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the delay by the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents in depositing their respective declarations was not a violation of the provisions of the Treaty, and of the Charter, the Protocol and the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (the Vienna Convention), (iii) Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the 1st Respondent had no duty under the Treaty to supervise the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents to comply with their 4