have been developed before it concerning the exercise of its discretion to give an Opinion"(§ 31). 13. Thus, like this honourable Court, the ICJ held that it had no jurisdiction to give the Opinion. However, in the operative part of the Opinion, the ICJ indicated that "it cannot give11 the advisory Opinion requested of it under the World Health Assembly resolution WHA46.40 of 14 May 1993 ". This is what the AfCHPR should have said with respect to SERAP. 14. In conclusion, one can only express the hope that the African Union would amend Article 4 (1) of the Protocol with a view to opening up possibilities for referrals to AfCHPR and relaxing the conditions required of NGOs to bring their request for advisory Opinion within the ambit of the Court's jurisdiction; or, the way of amendment being uncertain, to extend its criteria for granting observer status to include NGOs with similar status before the Banjul Commission. 15. Finally, it is noteworthy that despite their rejection of the requests for Opinion in the case of Eastern Karelia and in the Legality of the use of nuclear weapons, both PCIJ and ICJ did not hesitate to give a title to their two decisions denying an Advisory Opinion. It is in effect the nature of the request which determines the nature of the decision and its characterization, and not the response to the request12. 11 12 Idem See on the contrary, the Opinion of Judge Matusse on this Opinion 4|Page