cooperation agreements signed between the African Union and Member States or other institutions. 22: On the second issue, the Applicant contends that Article 34(6) excludes jurisdiction being exercised by the only continental body charged with considering allegations of Member State violations of their obligations under treaties they had signed. In his view, it is difficult to imagine that States would undermine make the willingly thus declarations obligations depriving and determine cases and/or they had the continental enter some previously reservations agreed to that observe Court of any authority to hear of violations alleged by individuals and NGOs against the States concerned. 23. On the last issue: the Applicant submits that every African worthy of the name Union has the obligation to defend the Constitutive Act of the African in the same manner as constitution of his or her country. 34(6), the Applicant every citizen should defend the Referring to the provisions of Article is of the view that since the Application was not directed against any Member State, it should not be rejected under the said Article. 24. Furthermore, the Applicant alleges that Article 34(6) is at variance with the Constitutive Act of the African Union because it is a violation of the principles and objectives enshrined in the said Act. In that regard, he quotes part of the Preamble of the Protocol according to which Member States of the Organization of African Unity, State Parties to the Charter were, African “Firmly convinced Charter on that the attainment Human and of the objectives Peoples’ Rights of the require the establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to Li ™ 4e gO Rye