DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FATSAH OUGUERGOUZ 1. The purpose of the present dissenting opinion is to explain the reasons which led me to vote against the Court’s decision to transfer the matter to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’Rights, pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Protocol; incidentally, it seeks to clarify my position in regard to the statement made in the first operative paragraph which I voted for. * 2: I am of the opinion that the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Ekollo Moundi Alexandre’s Application and I therefore voted for the first operative paragraph of the decision. However, on the Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction, 1 am of the view that the Court ought not to have considered the Application judicially and should have already expounded amply on judicial policy of the Court in my 2009 Judgement in the matter of Senegal. not have adopted a decision on the matter. I this issue of procedure which touches on the separate opinion attached to the 15 December Michelot Yogogombaye vs The Republic of 3. The instant decision of the Court is formally distinct from a “Judgement” by virtue of the fact that it was signed by only the President and the Registrar of the Court and adopted by way of a “simplified” procedure without any involvement of the two States against which the Application was brought. 4. The adoption of the format of a “decision” on its lack of jurisdiction, rather than a judgement, was decided by the Court at its 21° Ordinary Session (6-17 June 2011), when it considered Application No. N° 002/2011 (Soufiane Ababou vs. Republic of Algeria), from which I abstained in compliance with the requirements of Article 22 of the Protocol and Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of Court. When it considered this Application, the Court had specifically decided that when an application does not seem, prima facie, to stand any chance of success, it should not be referred to the State against which it has been filed. 5. In the present case, the Court decided not to transmit Mr. Ekollo Moundi Alexandre’s Application to Cameroon and Nigeria, not even to inform them of the filing of this application. The Court also decided not to inform the President of the African Union Commission and other States parties to the Protocol about the filing of the Application. 6. been Iam of the view that in the present case the Application ought to have dismissed de plano through a simple letter from the Registry to the