advisory jurisdiction over the Maputo Protocol from the provisions of the Charter, it follows that it may similarly derive its contentious jurisdiction accordingly. Both decisions on Communications and General Comments constitute authoritative interpretations of substantive provisions, and indeed the former establishes obligations for all States Party to the Protocol while the latter may be confined to the respective State concerned. Indeed, it is common to derive jurisdiction over a treaty through various sources, the African Court has asserted its competence to interpret and apply the Maputo Protocol under Article 3(1) of the Court Protocol and has indeed never referred to Article 27 of the Maputo Protocol on this issue. c. Teleological interpretation . .· 85. The above finding aligns with the object and purpose of the Maputo Protocol. Notably, the preambular text of the Maputo Protocol cites t.h e promotion and protection of women's rights among its chief aims '. While .admittedly, the Protocol was adopted to supplement the normative base of the African Charter, it is also aimed at enhancing the protection of women's rights in Africa. Indeed, the Protocol acknowledges that _a lack of effective implementation rather than a dearth of protective instruments necessitated its adoption. The Commission's communications procedure is necessarily an essential avenue for enhancing the protection of women's rights.under the Protocol. Indeed, it is only to the extent that the Commission is prepared to interpret and apply the Maputo Protocol that Governments would appreciate the extent of its obligations and citizens understand the scope of the rights they have under the Charter35 . 86. An interpretation that the Commission is prohibited from exercising this crucial function falls foul of this purpose. Notably, the majority of Communications before the Commission and Court consist of individual Communications. Notably, the Commission and Court have in total only received three· (3) inter-State Communications in contrast to the hundreds of individual complaints. Ho,tvever, the African Court is not empowered to seize Communications submitted by individuals unless the violating State has made the 'optional' declaration under Article 36(4) of the Court Protocol recognizing its contentious jurisdiction. Considering that, to date, only eight States have made the optional declaration under Article 36(4), the majority of Complainants who allege a violation of their rights under the Maputo Protocol cannot vindicate their rights notwithstanding the operationalization of the Court. The exclusion of the Commission's contentious jurisdiction, therefore, has the effect of eroding the protection of women's rights.