Article 2.11 31. The Applicants further aver that Article 24 of the Charter provides for the right of peoples to a satisfactory, inclusive and development-friendly environment. It is also the contention of the Applicants that this Court has material jurisdiction to interpret the Algiers Convention insofar as, in accordance with the jurisprudence of regional human rights mechanisms, the preservation of natural resources is an integral part of human rights. *** 32. The Court observes that, in determining whether a treaty is a human rights instrument, it is necessary to refer specifically to the its purpose, which is made clear either by the express provision of the personal rights of individuals or groups, or by obligations imposed on State Parties to perform a particular action.12 The Court recalls its jurisprudence in APDH v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire that a State Party’s obligations to perform certain actions aim to implement corresponding subjective rights guaranteed to individuals.13 33. The issue to be determined in the present case, therefore, is whether the Algiers Convention is a human rights instrument. 34. The Court confirms that the Respondent State is a party to both the 1968 Algiers Convention and the revised 2003 Convention. With specific regard to the text of the Algiers Convention, the Court notes that its provisions are not framed in terms of specific rights granted to individuals. However, certain provisions of the Algiers Convention impose obligations on State Parties to implement the rights granted to individuals or groups of individuals in various Article 2 of the Algiers Convention states: “The Contracting States shall undertake to adopt the measures necessary to ensure conservation, utilization and development of soil, water, flora and faunal resources in accordance with scientific principles and with due regard to the best interests of the people”. 9 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (APDH) v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR, 668, § 57. 13 Ibid, § 63. 11 12