Application Number 001/2012 Frank David Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania and thereafter, in Application Number 003/2012 Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania. The Court, in the above cases held that, the substance of the complaint must relate to rights guaranteed by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. that the rights alleged to have been violated It is not necessary are specified in the Application. 46. In any event, in the instant case, the Applicant's Reply to the Respondent’s Response specifies the rights guaranteed by the Charter alleged to have been violated (supra paragraph 42). 47. The which Court finds that the Applicant's Application relate to human and peoples’ rights states facts protected under the Charter, and therefore holds that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae. Jurisdiction ratione personae 48. Although the parties raised an issue purportedly relating to the Court's jurisdiction ratione personae, the Court does not conside: this to be an objection on its jurisdiction ratione personae. Respondent is a State Party to the Protocol, which The has also made the declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol accepting the seizure of the Court by an individual. The Respondent deposited its instrument of ratification of the Protocol on 10 February 2006 and deposited the declaration required under 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March 2010. deposit of Though the the alleged instruments of violations occurred ratification and before declaration 20 HA A 4 \ the MO Le