54. The Court recalls that as it has held in Ali ben Hassen ben Youcef ben Abdlhafid v. Republic of Tunisia, notes that by ratifying international treaties and covenants, States assume existing international obligations to protect human rights, and therefore to subject themselves to oversight by international human rights protection mechanisms established by the United Nations and other regional systems, including the Court. The goal of these mechanisms is to guarantee effective human rights protection and to preserve human dignity, a noble goal that does not contradict or infringe the sovereignty of States.5 55. With regard to the Respondent State’s contention that the jurisdiction of this Court infringes on its sovereignty, the Court recalls the international jurisprudence on contemporary international relations according to which State sovereignty is not unlimited. Such illustration of limitation to sovereignty is when a State voluntarily commits to certain international obligations or when a State becomes a party to a bilateral or multilateral treaty. In this regard, the Court recalls the 1923 Vapeur Wimbledon Decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice, where the latter held that: “[t]he Court declines to see in the conclusion of any Treaty by which a State undertakes to perform or refrain from performing a particular act an abandonment of its sovereignty. No doubt any convention creating an obligation of this kind places a restriction upon the exercise of the sovereign rights of the State, in the sense that it requires them to be exercised in a certain way. But the right of entering into international engagements is an attribute of State sovereigntye”.6 56. With regard to the Respondent State’s objection that it is not responsible for decisions issued by its courts, this Court notes that the principle of the unity of the State is well “established as a customary and well established rule of international law”. Accordingly, “the conduct of any organ of a State must be 5 Abdelhafid v. Tunisia (jurisdiction and admissibility) (2021) 5 AfCLR 193, § 46. 6 CPJI, Vapeur Wimbledon, Germany v. France and others, Serie A, No 1, 25, 17 August 1923. 12