7 which contain provisions related to humcm rights . Treaties of the first category whic h arc crafted in such a manner as to g ive "subjective rights" lO individuals coul d beyond any doubt be considered as human rights instruments; they arc human rights instruments par excellence. Treaties of the first category providing essentially for undertakings by States Parties and no subj ective rights to individuals could also be considered as human ri ghts instruments. For treaties of the second category, that is treaties the main purpose of wh ich is not the protection of human rights but which conta in provisions relating to human rights, thei r case is more problematic insofar as the said provisions generally do not grant subjective rights to individual s within the jurisdiction of States Pariies. The Court poss0ssing «la competence de sa c:ompchence» (Artic le 3 (2) of the Protocol), it is ror it lO determine wh ic h are the treaties relating to human r ights falling within its mate r ia l j uri sdicti on, takin g duL' con si deration of their <<rc le\·ancc» for th e ex amination of a case (Artic le 3 (I) or the Pro toc o l). 16. Such a weighty issue as the applicable law required consideration by the Court especially as 1he latter had asserted in Paragraphs 122 and 123 of the Judgment, that its j urisdic tion extends to the interpretation and application of both the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1948 Universal Declaration o f Human rights. This assert ion o f the Court raises quest ions in relation to the first instrument which is a treaty providing for an international monitoring body, the Human Rights Commi ttee of the United Nations; the risk of fJ:-agmentation of the international jurisprudence shou ld indeed not be overlooked. Such an assertion also raises questions in relation to the