1
.
We concur with the position adopted by the Court on admissibility, jurisdiction
and operative provisions in the four Mulindahabi v. Rwandajudgments adopted
by unanimous decision of the judges sitting on the bench.
2.
By this Opinion, we wish to express a position on a point of law. This opinion
clarifies a point relating to the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction on which our
Court has often proceeded by economy of argument.
3. ln our view, Article 3 of the Protocol, while taking account of the
general
framework of the jurisdiction it lays down, should also be understood in terms
of the scope given to it by Article 7 of the same Protocol. Since lhe Mulindahabi
species do not pose any particular problems of jurisdiction, there were no
a
priori reasons for the emergence of such a debate. However, the question did
emerge and therefore required clarification which would be valid for other
judgments delivered or to be delivered by the Court.
4. A breadcrumb trail struclures the analysis. These are two waves of decisions
that characterize the Court's jurisprudence. The cut-off point is generally in
2015, when the Court delivers ils Zongoi judgment. The decision on jurisdiction
in this case is given in 2013. lt can be supported because a reflection seems to
be beginning on the choices in terms of procedure with the Mohamed Abubakari
judgment in 20162. The Court begins to work, as noted by Judges Niyungeko
and Guissé, more "distinctly: first all questions relating to its jurisdiction (both the
preliminary objection and the question of its ,jurisdiction under the Protocol), and then
all questions relating to the admissibility of the application"3.
5 Junc 2()
I5.
: AlCllPR, ,lkthumtl ,lbuhttklr-i v. L,'nitel llepuhlic ttl 'lun:trrlrr, 3 Junc 201(r, .s§ 2tl and 29
r I)isscnting opinion ol'Judgcs (idrard Niyungcko and lil lla.iii (iuissi in thc lirhun .\lkanlat ire r'. Republrc ol
.\tulcrl.lLi
lutlgnant, 2l Junc
l0li.
L