(NGOs) registered in Kenya. The Applicant states that the latter works specifically to promote the rights of the Ogieks while the former has Observer Status with the Commission , and therefore both were competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Court's Assessment 58. The personal jurisdiction of the Court is governed by Article 5 (1) of the Protocol which lists the entities, including the Applicant, entitled to submit cases before it. By virtue of this provision , the Court has personal jurisdiction with respect to this Application. The argument adduced by the Respondent according to which the original complainants had no standing to file the matter before the Commission and to act on behalf of the Ogieks is not relevant in the determination of the personal jurisdiction of the Court because the original complainants before the Commission are not the parties in the Application before this Court. The Court does not have to make a determination on the jurisdiction of the Commission. 59. With regard to its jurisdiction over the Respondent, the Court recalls that the Respondent is a State Party to the Charter and to the Protocol. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over the Respondent. 60. It is also important for this Court to restate that, because the Application before it is filed by the Commission, pursuant to Articles 2 and 5(1 )(a) of the Protocol, the question as to whether or not the Respondent has made the declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol does not arise. This is because, unlike for individuals and NGOs, the Protocol does not require the Respondent to have made the declaration under Article 34(6) for the Commission to file Applications before the Court.4 61 . Therefore , the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction to hear this Application. 4 See African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (Judgment on Merits) 3 June 2016 paragraph 51 . ~ 17 ~ ~1