38. The Applicant State prays the Court to dismiss this objection, arguing that
invoking the existence of a dispute derives “from a classical approach to
international litigation” before the ICJ. It emphasizes that in the African
human rights protection system, proof of a dispute is not required.
39. The Applicant State explains that the ICJ is different from the Court, both in
terms of the modalities for accepting jurisdiction and in terms of the
“missions” of the two courts.
40. On the first point, the DRC submits that States’ acceptance of the
jurisdiction of the ICJ is expressed both through the Charter of the United
Nations and Article 36(2) of the Statute of the ICJ, which, in this regard,
rendered the Anglo-Iranian Oil judgment (United Kingdom v. Iran). However,
as regards inter-State cases brought before the African Court, acceptance
of the latter’s jurisdiction derives solely from ratification of the Protocol.
41. On the second point, the Applicant State indicates that, within the meaning
of Article 38 of its Statute, the ICJ’s “mission” is to settle disputes in
accordance with international law, whereas the “mission” of the African
Court is to protect human rights in Africa as per the Preamble and Article 3
of the Protocol. It further indicates that in Africa, the “mission” of settling
disputes belongs to the Court of Justice of the African Union, which is yet to
be operationalised, as it emerges from Article 20 of the Protocol of the Court
of Justice of the African Union, the provisions of which are similar to Article
33 of the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.
42. Furthermore, the Applicant State avers that the terms “dispute” or “case”,
which are used interchangeably, refer to an ordinary human rights dispute,
as underscored by the Court in its judgment in Suy Bi Gohore Emile and
Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. The Applicant State also contends that
it is sufficient for an applicant to allege a violation of human rights protected
by the Charter or by any human rights instrument for the Court to assert its
jurisdiction, as the Court held in its judgment in Sébastien Germain Marie
Aïkoué Ajavon v. Republic of Benin of 4 December 2020.
11