Respondent State contends that this is also not a human rights instrument since it does not specify any right relating thereto. Finally, it argues that Article 60 of the Charter applies to the Commission and not the Court. *** 101. The Court confirms that whether a treaty is termed as a human rights instrument is relevant only when, in a given case, the rights alleged to have been violated are protected solely by that treaty. On the contrary, there is no need for such a designation when the rights alleged to have been violated are protected by other treaties which are manifestly and universally recognized as human rights instruments. 102. The Court recalls that in its Application, the Applicant State accuses: the Respondent State of being directly responsible for the violations of human rights perpetrated by its armed forces in disregard of the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Protocol, the Maputo Protocol and the ICCPR, following acts of aggression and other unlawful and continuous military activities it has been conducting in Congolese territory since November 2021, in a manner that is incompatible, inter alia, with the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region (Great Lakes Pact), and the Addis Ababa Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the Region (Addis Ababa Framework Agreement) of 24 February 2013. 103. The Court further recalls that it has consistently held that although Rule 40(2) of the Rules provides that the Application shall specify the alleged violation, there is no insistence with regard to formal indication in an application of the instrument from which the provision of the alleged violation is based. Therefore, the fact that an applicant references a declaration has 25