22. In reply, the Applicants submit that the objection should be dismissed, arguing that sovereignty and adherence to international instruments are subject to the fundamental principle of the supremacy of international law, which requires that the provisions of international instruments ratified by a State be adopted into its domestic legal system, so that they prevail over any domestic laws that might be contrary, ambiguous or incomplete. The Applicants conclude that the Charter must be adopted in the domestic legal system of the Respondent State, thereby ensuring the pre-eminence of international human rights standards in the domestic legal system. 23. The Applicants further affirm that sovereignty must not be a basis to evade international obligations since the Respondent State is duty-bound to respect and promote human rights. 24. The Applicants further contend that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, each State must perform its international obligations in good faith. In this regard, they recall the maxim nemo ex propria turpitudine commodum capere potest, to wit, no one may profit from his own wrongdoing. The Applicants contend that invoking sovereignty was in itself a flagrant violation of the international trust placed in the institutions of the Respondent State, especially as the Respondent State’s 2014 Constitution underscores the State’s obligation to respect human rights. *** 25. The Court notes that under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”.4 26. The court notes, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that the Respondent State has ratified the Charter and the Protocol. It also 4 This is a fundamental general principle of law, both in international law and in international human rights law. The Respondent State became a Party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties on 23 June 1971. 7