15. An examination of Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules as well as the related provisions Respondent of the is entitled Protocol to seize cited the Court, Court and above the shows Court that while the compel the is based on cannot Respondent to seize it. 16. The relationship between complementarity. Therefore, independent mutually protecting yet human the the Court reinforcing the and partner rights on the whole Respondent the Respondent institutions continent. with work the aim as of Neither institution has the mandate to compel the other to adopt any measures whatsoever. For these reasons, the Court unanimously: 17. Finds that, in terms of Article 3(1), 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, it has no jurisdiction to hear the case and dismisses the Application. 18. Finds that pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of the Rules, the Court cannot compel the Respondent to seize it. In accordance with Article 28(7) of the Protocol and Rule 60(5) of the Rules, separate opinion of Judge Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ is appended to this Order. the Done at Arusha, this 20" day of November in the year 2015, in English and French, the English version being authoritative. a Signed: Augustino S. L. RAMADHANI, President Elsie N. THOMPSON, Vice President Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Judge Duncan TAMBALA, Judge Sylvain ORE, Judge Ben KIOKO, Judge El Hadji GUISSE, Judge Sv. my | 7 Shon ea) Cel OE —~_»~_< f t pales = Te Hie i ————— AZ