b) Material jurisdiction 47.Article 3(1) of the Protocol provides that “the jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the State concerned”. 48.The Court has already Charter on Human State became Democracy noted that the Respondent State is a Party to the Rights and the Protocol. It notes also that the Respondent a Party to the Covenant Protocol on 31 July on 26 2013, and March 1992, to African the the ECOWAS Charter on Democracy on 28 November 2013. 49.The Court however also has to satisfy itself that these two instruments, namely: the African Charter on Democracy and the Democracy Protocol, are human rights instruments within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol. 50.The Court recalls that it sought the opinion of the African Union Commission and the African Institute for International Law on this issue. 51.The African Union Commission points out that the objectives of the African Charter on Democracy as spelt out in Article 2 (1) thereof include, to “promote adherence, by each State Party, to the universal values and principles of democracy and respect for human rights”; that by Article 3 (1) of the same Charter, State Parties undertake to implement it in accordance with the principles of “respect for human rights and democratic principles”; that as per Article 4 of the Charter on Human principle Rights, State Parties commit themselves to promote democracy, the of the rule of law and human rights and recognize popular participation through universal suffrage as the inalienable right of the people; that furthermore, as per Article 6, State Parties shall ensure that citizens enjoy 13