00,0326 a ii. Objection relating to incompatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union 44.The Respondent State avers that the allegations raised in the Application are not compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitutive Act"). This position is based on the convictions against Kayumba Nyamwasa and Safari Stanley following criminal proceedings in the Respondent State. The Respondent State avers that Kayumba Nyamwasa was convicted of crimes of threatening state security, sectarianism, setting up a criminal gang and desertion from the military. The Respondent State further indicates that Safari Stanley was convicted for genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide crimes against humanity and violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol ll. 45. The Respondent State argues that because the acts for which these Applicants were convicted are against the principles set out in Article 4(o) of the Constitutive Act, this Application does not meet the requirements of Article 56(2) of the Charter and should therefore be dismissed. 46.The Applicants have not specifically responded to the Respondent State's contention on the incompatibility of their Application with the Constitutive Act, rather they refer generally to the irrelevance of the Respondent State's objection in this regard and highlight the injustice of their convictions. 47. Article 56(2) of the Charter, as restated in Article a\Q) of the Rules, envisages that applications before the Court shall be considered if they are compatible with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), now the Constitutive Act. Article 4(o) of the said Act provides that "the Union shall function in accordance with the 7l e{QL **n..