4. I shall start by noting that, in his request, Mr, Falana makes no reference to the provisions of the Protocol relating to the Court’s jurisdiction in contentious matters (Articles 3 and 5); he merely indicates that “the Application [is brought] pursuant to Rule 29 of the Rules of the African Court which provides that “the Court may also, if it deems it necessary, hear, under rule 45 of the Rules the individual or NGO that initiated a Communication to the Commission pursuant to Article 55 of the Charter”, 5, This request, which the Registry did not notify to the Commission nor to other entities listed in Article 35 (3) of the Court, ought therefore to have been dealt with by way of administrative action, in other words rejected de plano by letter Registrar same as in all other cases recently dealt with by the Court it manifestly lacked jurisdiction.” African Rules of a simple from the in which 6. It was indeed by office mail signed by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar that “Applications” filed by individuals against non-State entities such as the European Court of Human Rights or the Conférence Interafricaine des Marchés des Assurances (CIMA) were rejected. 7. In his reply to the author of the latter request, the Registrar thus stated as follows: “[...] | would like to inform you that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal for two main reasons: 1) The Court only receives petitions against States (Article 3 of the Protocol). 2) ae 8. In the reply to the request filed against the European Court of Human Rights (and France), the Registrat stated that: ? Until the 26 June 2014 decision by the Court dismissing the Application filed against Tunisia (Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi v. the Republic of Tunisia), Applications filed against African States that are not Parties to the Protocol or have not made the optional declaration under Article 34 of the Protocol were subject to judicial determination by the Court and dismissed by a decision of the latter (see my separate opinion appended to this decision of 26 June 2014); after this date, similar Applications administrative action (letter from the Registry). were dismissed by way of a simple * Letter from the Registrar dated 26 June 2015 (Ref AFCHPR/Reg,/06/008) in reply to Mr. Roger Kamdem’s request against CIMA received at the Registry on 10 June 2015 and dated 19 [sic] June 2015.