10 22. J.n the instant case, the critical date Jor detcnni.n.ing the jurisdiction of the Court to deal w ith the Applications cannot therefore be the date of entry into force for Tanzania of the sole African Charter or the Protoco l; the only date to be considered is that of the deposit by Tanzania of the declaration under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, that is 29 March 2010. It is therefore clear, on this basis, that any alleged violation of the Alhcan Charter by Tanzania occun·ing before that date would not fait within the temporal jurisdiction of the Court unless in circumstances where such violation bears a continuous character. 23. In Paragraph 84 of the Judgment, the Court should have clearly indicated that the only date to be considered in the instant case is the date of entry into force of the optional declaration for the Respondent State and not the date of entry into force of the Charter or the Protocol for the said State; it should then have focused its attention on the sole issue of the continuous character of the alleged violations beyond the critical date of 29 March 2010. ll) Admissibility of the Applications 24. The Court should have considered, even in a summary manner, the issue of the legal 1ntcrest to act of the Tanganyika Law Society and the Legal Human Rights Ccntcr, the two non-governmental organizations which lodged the first applications. 25. lndeed, a distinction needs to be made between the "capacity to act" and ''the interest to act" before the Court. The capacity of an entity to act re lates to its authority to appear before the Court and therefore comes