human and peoples’ rights. Indeed, one cannot rule out the fact that in the not too distant future, the Court may be flooded with a whole range of applications which it would not be able to dispose of satisfactorily because of the limited material and human resources at its disposal. In that event, the Court would then need to make a choice: either to continue with the systematic consideration of all applications filed before it, with the risk of bottlenecks and the inherent paralysis of its services or to sift the applications using a set of criteria and thus transforming itself into some kind of judicial body regulating the entire African system of human rights protection. 36. To sum up, I am of the view that in the instant case: - the lack of jurisdiction ratione personae of the Court being manifest, the Application ought to have been dealt with administratively by the Registry and should accordingly not have given rise to a decision of the Court; - since this is a case where the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction, this Application should not have been transferred to the African Commission under Article 6 (3) of the Protocol and, at any rate, reasons should have been duly provided for such a transfer; - it was eventually for the Registry to “direct” the Applicant to the African Commission either in the letter in which it informs the Applicant that the matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Court or, as in the instant case, in the letter under cover of which it transmits to the Applicant the Court’s decision on its lack of jurisdiction. Fatsah Ouguergouz Robert Eno Acting Registrar ‘