6 ''Article 3 (I) of the Protocol ( ... ) does not specify which instrument should be considered as a human rights instmment'' and argues further "that any Treaty containing provisions on the protection of human rights should be considered as relevant and within the jurisdiction of the Court" (Paragraph 13). At the Public Hearing of 15 June 2012, the second Applicant indicated that "the East African Treaty ( ... ) does have in Article 6 a provision that protects the human rights'' and ' 'that provision not the entire treaty but that particular provis ion( ... ) is part of applicable law before the Court'' (Public Hearing of 15 June 2012, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 12, lines 20-23). I3. Therefore, contrary to what it indicated in Paragraph 87 of the Judgment, the Court had also to determine whether the Treaty establishing the East African Community was applicable in the light of Articles 3 (1) and 7 of the Protocol, as well as Rule 26 (I) (a) of the Rules o f Court. 14. These three provtstons make mention of "any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned" and direct reference to three requirements: 1) The instrument in question must be an international treaty , hence the requirement that it be ratified by the State concerned, 2) this international treaty must "re1atc lo human righ ts" and 3) it must have been ratiticd by the State conccmed. These three requirements are cumulative and, if met, the Court would again have had to ensure that the said treaty is "relevant" to the treatment of the matter. 15. On the issue of whether a particu Jar treaty can be cons idered as "a human rights instrument", the Court could, for instance, have suggested that some distinction be made between treaties wh ich deal mainly with the protection of human rights and those which address other issues but