the Charter, namely, the right to the enjoyment of the best attainable state of physical and mental health and the right to a general satisfactory environment conducive to development. 40. Consequently, the Court confirms that the Algiers Convention is indeed, in its relevant provisions, a human rights instrument within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol. 41. in view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection and accordingly holds that it has material jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Algiers Convention. ii. Objection based on the failure to identify the Articles of the Algiers Convention allegedly violated 42. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants allege the violation of the Algiers Convention without specifying the exact provisions they claim were violated. According to the Respondent State, this is contrary to the spirit of Article 56 of the Charter and, therefore, prevents the Court from exercising its material jurisdiction. The Respondent State further contends that Article 13 of the Algiers Convention does not have paragraph 3 and that Article 1 thereof has nothing to do with the subject of the Application. 43. In their Reply, the Applicants contend that the Respondent State violated Articles 5, 6(3)(c) and 13(1) of the Algiers Convention. They contend that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case insofar as the purpose of the above provisions is to conserve nature and natural resources in Africa. *** 44. The Court recalls, in line with its constant jurisprudence, that applicants are not required to indicate specifically and expressly, the articles of which a violation is alleged. It is sufficient that the subject matter of the application relates to the rights guaranteed by the Charter or any other human rights 14