191. It does not escape the Court’s notice that the “African Court of Justice”, to which the parties agree to submit their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Great Lakes Pact, is different from this Court, not to mention that it has not been operationalised by the AU. 192. The Court, therefore, finds that the rules of procedure outlined under the Great Lakes Pact are not applicable before it and, therefore, cannot be invoked to bar proceedings before it. \ 193. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to the admissibility of this Application based on non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Articles 28 and 29 of the Great Lakes Pact. ii. Objection based on alleged non-compliance with the preliminary nonjudicial procedure required by the Constitutive Act 194. The Respondent State argues that the Application is inadmissible for failure to comply with the preliminary dispute settlement procedure under Article 26 of the Constitutive Act of the AU. 195. According to the Respondent State, the fundamental issues raised in the Application relate to peace, security, sovereignty and territorial integrity, as enshrined in Articles 3(b) and (f) and 4(a), (e), (f) and (i) of the Constitutive Act and the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council (hereinafter referred to as “the PSC Protocol”). It contends that the Applicant State is accusing it of committing acts that are incompatible, in particular, with the Constitutive Act, which means that its Application is substantially based on the interpretation and/or implementation of the Act. 196. The Respondent State argues that, despite the fact that the Applicant State frames its issues before the Court as human rights matters , the subjectmatter of its Application remains, first and foremost, a matter of peace and 46