for the Court to deliberate and subsequently adjudicate on matters/actions carried out by the Police Forces of Kenya and Mozambique, being States Parties which have not recognized the jurisdiction of the Court by depositing the declaration. The Respondent cites the Court's decisions in Application No. 00512011, Daniel Amare and Mulugeta A mare vs. Republic of Mozambique and Mozambique Airlines and Application 0021011 , Sofiane Abadou vs. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, in support of its argument. 77. The Respondent concludes that, based on the foregoing , the Application has not satisfied the admissibility requirement under Rule 40 (2) of the Rules and should therefore be dismissed. 78. In their Reply to the above objection, the Applicants state as follows : "(we) refute the claims of the Respondent State which states that we want the Court to deliberate and subsequently adjudicate on matters/actions carried out by the police of Kenya and Mozambique. It is our submission that the matter concerning the forceful kidnapping and abduction by the Tanzanian police in collusion with the Kenyan and Mozambican police, is a matter which has not been fully determined as it is still pending in the High Court of Tanzania in Moshi. The matter in Application 16 of 2006 which is In the High Court concerning the wrongful kidnapping and abduction has been dragging in court for the last 8 years and going. This matter has been unduly prolonged". 79. The Court notes that the Constitutive Act of the African Union which replaced the Charter of the OAU provides that one of the objectives of the African Union shall be to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments. Therefore, the present Application is in line with the objectives of the African Union as it requires the Court, as an organ of the African Union, to consider whether or not human and peoples' rights are being ~ ~Jf£:-- ~ ~ )1 ~~l