Protocol", 12 and that the use of the word "any" in the phrase "any African Organization" in Article 4 (1) of the Protocol also indicates an intention to create wider access to the Court. 35.According to the Centre, the Court has jurisdiction to provide advisory opinions on the request of NGOs, such as SERAP, within the meaning of Article 4, and "this is because SERAP meets all the 3 requirements of the third category of entities that may request for advisory opinion from the Court, that is, 'any African organization recognized by the OAU'. First, by virtue of its geographical location in Africa, its predominantly African management and membership, as well as its thematic focus on African issues, it qualifies as 'African'. Second, that it qualifies as an 'organization' within the ordinary meaning and context of Article 4 (1) of the Protocol. Third, SERAP 'is recognized by the AU', having enjoyed observer status with the African Commission since 2008". 36. The Centre concludes that SERAP organization recognized by the consequently request an advisory for is therefore African Union", opinion from "an African and the may Court pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Protocol. VI. Position of the Court 37.ln accordance with the provisions of Rule 39, read together with Rule 72 of the Rules, the Court will now decide whether it has jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion on the Request before i I. These Rules provide as follows: 12 International Commission of Jurists' additional Protocol, Article 28, to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 5th workshop on NGO participation in the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (28-30 November 1993) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Page 11 of 19