hazardous and unpredictable way or in a manner bereft of any apparent logical approach. 24. The integrity of the Court’s judicial function indeed requires that be provided for decisions adopted under the above-mentioned provision comply with the requirements of predictability and consistency which essential ingredients that underpin the principle of legal certainty which be guaranteed by the Court at all times. 25. In of cases there is approach reasons so as to are the should the absence of such objective criteria for the referral to the Commission over which the Court declares that it manifestly has no jurisdiction, the huge risk that such a referral would become systematic, which seems to be fostered by the current practice. 26. Furthermore, in the absence of objective criteria for transfers of cases to the Commission, a dissenting Judge would not be afforded the opportunity to clarify the reasons for which he objects to the grounds for a transfer unless he mentions elements of fact or of law, which do not appear in the Court’s decision and, in so doing, betrays the secrecy of the deliberations of the Court. 27. If the Court Commission matters would be necessary it could for instance to its attention in were to persevere in the practice of referring to the over which it finds that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction, it for it to set out clear criteria for such referrals. In so doing, be guided by the nature or gravity of the violations brought the application in question and thus transfer to the Commission, those applications which “apparently reveal the existence of a series of serious or massive violations of human and peoples’rights”, to use the wording of Article 58 (1) of the African Charter. 28. It must be recalled that the criterion of “serious or massive violations of human rights” is one of those that the African Commission used to submit a case to the Court under Article 5 of the Protocol (see Rules 84 (2) and 118 (3) of the Rules of the Commission). Once the case is referred by the Court, it would then lie with the Commission to consider the application and make the findings arising therefrom in accordance with the above-stated provisions of its Rules. 29. If the Court were to embark on this path, it would be following a reasoning that it had recently applied in its practice of transferring to the Commission matters over which it found that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction. It would even be attaching some significance to that practice by setting it aside for exceptional circumstances. Hence, the Court would more or less be playing the role of “an early warning mechanism” for the Commission, similar to the one that may now play individuals and non-governmental organizations before the