the State concerned is a Party. This applies regardless of whether an application is filed by individuals, the Commission or States.2 77. The Court’s jurisdiction to hear a case is, therefore, not subject to any formal requirement to prove the prior existence of a dispute, before the filing of the Application. 78. In the light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this case due to the absence of a dispute. b. Objection to material jurisdiction on the grounds that certain instruments invoked by the Applicant State are not human rights instruments 79. The Respondent State argues that under Article 7 of the Protocol, the Court is empowered to apply and interpret the Charter or any other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned. It submits that certain instruments invoked by the Applicant State, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘Constitutive Act”), the Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region (hereinafter referred to as “the Great Lakes Pact”) and the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework Agreement for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Region (hereinafter referred to as “the PSC Framework Agreement”), are not human rights instruments. 80. Relying on the Court’s jurisprudence on the characteristics of human rights instruments, in particular in Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l'Homme v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, the Respondent State submits that the said instruments contain neither “an express enunciation of the subjective rights of individuals or groups of individuals, nor [...] mandatory 2 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §51. 20