Court". 25. In this regard, Senegal "strongly asserted that it did not make any such declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights to deal with applications brought by individuals". 26. Alternatively, Senegal averred that the Applicant "was wrong to meddle in a matter that is the exclusive concern of Senegal, Hissein Habré and the victims" as per the obligations arising from the Convention against Torture; and that it does not see any "justification for legitimate interest on the part of the Applicant to bring the case against the Republic of Senegal". 27. In addition, Senegal denied the allegations made by the Applicant in regard to the "purported violation [by it] of the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law", and the "purported violation of African Union mandate" of July 2006. 28. In conclusion, Senegal prayed the Court to: "On matters of procedure: Rule that Senegal has not made a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to hear applications submitted by individuals; Rule that the Applicant has no interest to institute the application; Therefore, declare that the application is inadmissible. On the merits: Declare and decide that the evidence adduced by Mr. Michelot Yogogombaye is baseless and incompetent; Therefore, strike out the pleas submitted by the Applicant as baseless; Rule that Mr. Michelot Yogogombaye should bear the costs incurred by the State of Senegal in regard to the application". 29. In accordance with Rules 39 (1) and 52 (7) of the Rules, the Court has at this stage, to first consider the preliminary objections raised by Senegal, starting with the objection to the Court's jurisdiction. 30. Article 3 (2) of the Protocol and Rule 26 (2) of the Rules provide that "in the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide". 31. To resolve this issue, it should be noted that, for the Court to hear a case brought directly by an individual against a State Party, there must be compliance with, inter alia, Article 5 (3) and Article 34 (6) of the Protocol. 32. Article 5 (3) provides that: "The Court may entitle relevant Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission and individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with Article 34 (6) of this Protocol". 33. For its part, Article 34 (6) of the Protocol provides that: "At the time of ratification of this Protocol or any time thereafter, the State shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases under Article 5 (3) of this Protocol. The Court shall not receive any petition under Article 5 (3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration". 34. The effect of the foregoing two provisions, read together, is that direct access to the Court by an individual is subject to the deposit by the respondent State of a special declaration authorising such a case to be brought before the Court. 35. As mentioned earlier, the Applicant in his submission averred that "the Republic and State of Senegal and the Republic and State of Chad, both members of the African Union, are Parties to the Protocol and have, respectively, made the declaration as per Article 34 (6) of the Protocol accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases from individuals". For its part, Senegal in its statement of defence "strongly asserted that it did not make any such declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights to hear applications brought by individuals". 36. In order to resolve this issue, the Court requested the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, depository of the Protocol, to forward to it a copy of the list of the States Parties to the Protocol that have made the declaration prescribed by the said Article 34 (6). Under covering letter dated 29 June 2009, the Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission transmitted the list in question, and the Court found that Senegal was not on the list of the countries that have made the said declaration. 37. Consequently, the Court concludes that Senegal has not accepted the jurisdiction of the Court to hear cases instituted directly against the country by individuals or non-governmental organizations. In the 4