the entire pleadings so far filed in the matter accompanied by a summary report. At the request of the Commission, the Court may also transmit the original case file. b) The Registrar shall immediately notify the parties who were before the Court about the transfer of the case to the Commission”. 19. The language used in this provision (“case”, “parties”, “the entire pleadings”, “summary report”) suggests that there is a case pending before the Court. One would also note that where the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction, there should not be much in the case file. Furthermore, even if the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione loci or ratione temporis were highly questionable and that said jurisdiction had been considered in detail by the Court, the part of the case file pertaining to the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction would be of no particular interest for the Commission and should not therefore be communicated to it. 20. My conclusion is therefore that, by relying on Article 6 (3) of the Protocol in transferring to the African Commission a case over which it has declared it manifestly had no jurisdiction, the Court deviated from the initial purpose of that provision; that same conclusion applies even more to the possible transfer to the Commission of an application in respect of which the Court would find, by way of a judgement, that it lacks jurisdiction following a classical contradictory procedure (see Rule 52 (6) of the Rules of the Court). 21. It is however not on the basis of that conclusion alone that I voted against the decision to transfer the case to the Commission. More fundamental in my view is the fact that the Court gave no reasons to justify its decision in the instant case; the requirement that reasons shall be given for the Court’s decisions is indeed consubstantial with its judicial function. 22. In the instant case, as in the three cases mentioned above, the Court was of the opinion that it was “appropriate” to transfer the case in light of “the allegations set out in the Application”, without further clarification. It ought to have set out the reasons which led it to consider that the allegations made in the Application warranted such a transfer or to explain why the latter was “appropriate”. 23. Article 6 (3) of the Protocol no doubt provides the Court with a choice between two possible solutions but that choice should nonetheless comply with objective criteria. Though it lies within the discretionary powers of the Court, such a choice cannot be made in an arbitrary manner, in other words in a