-good$s
principles of the respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection
of impunity and political assassination, acts of terrorism and subversive activities".
48.The Court notes that even though, according to the Respondent State the First and
Fifth Applicants were alleged to have been convicted of crimes which touch on some
of the principles in Article 4(o) of the Constitutive Act as aforementioned, the Court
is not called upon to decide on the legality or otherwise of such convictions. The
Court considers that the provision in Article 56(2) of the Charter addresses the
nature of an application and not the applicant's status. The prayer for reinstatement
of passports does not require the Court to make a decision that would undermine
the principles laid down in Article 4 of the Constitutive Act or any part thereof. On
the contrary, this would be in accordance with the Court's obligation to protect the
rights allegedly violated as it required to do in accordance with Article 3 (h) of the
Constitutive Act.3
49. Consequently, the Court finds that the Application is not contrary to the Constitutive
Act and the objection is therefore dismissed.
iii.
50.
Objection relating to the use of disparaging and insulting language
The Respondent State argues that the Application is full of disparaging and insulting
language directed at the Rwandan Judiciary and it should be declared inadmissible
for failure to meet the requirements of Article 56(3) of the Charter and Rule 40(3) of
the Rules.
3
Article 3(h) of the Constitutive Act provides that a key objective of the Union shall be "to promote and
protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the Charter and other relevant human rights
instruments"; See also Application No. 030i2015. Ruling of 0410712019 (Jurisdiction and
missibility)
Ramadhani lssa Malengo v United Republic of Tanzania, SS 31 - 32.
72
)r-r="