7. When the above declaration was brought to the attention of the Applicant, the Reference as against Rwanda was withdrawn on 22nd August, 2013 and the only issue to address in that regard at the end of this judgment is costs, for or against the Republic of Rwanda. 8. With regard to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents, it is not contested that they have not filed any declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) aforesaid and that is the gist of the Applicant’s Reference. Case of the Applicant 9. The Applicant’s case is contained in an Affidavit sworn on 19th January, 2012 by one Emmanuel Nsubuga, Secretary General of the Applicant political party and in submissions filed on 18th April, 2013 as well as a composite response to the Respondent’s submissions, filed on 9th August, 2013. In summary, its case is as follows: Firstly, that under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, only the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, State Parties and African Inter-governmental Organizations have automatic access to the African Court on Human and People’s Rights and that the State parties at their discretion can grant NGOs and individuals access to the Court by making declarations similar to the one made by Rwanda on 22nd January,2013 and by the United Republic of Tanzania on 29th March,2010. By not doing so, the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents have created a “disturbing situation” which has seriously affected “the entire system of judicial protection of human rights at the regional and continental level”. Secondly, that the Applicant has made demands to the Respondents, including the 1st Respondent, to remedy the above situation but no action has been taken and the result is that there is no external mechanism for 9|Page