infringement of the Treaty to warrant a cause of action against him. In any event that he, out of abundant caution, indeed sought a clarification from the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents as to the reasons why they had taken no action pursuant to Article 34(6) aforesaid but his letter dated 5th March, 2012 has elicited no response and so he has left the matter for the Court’s determination. 13. It is his concluding argument that for the above reasons, the Reference as filed has no merit and should be dismissed. Case for the 2nd Respondent 14. The 2nd Respondent filed a Response to the Reference on 23rd March, 2012 and urged the point that the delay in depositing a declaration under Article 34(6) does not in any way constitute a violation of any provision of the Treaty. In any case that since there is no time limit set to do so, no legal obligation is specifically conferred on any party to the Protocol in that regard and the Reference as crafted is vague, argumentative, scandalous, embarrassing and discloses no cause of action against the 2nd Respondent. 15. Further, that this Court has no jurisdiction to interpret any provision of the African Charter and its Protocols and should be dismissed with costs. Case for the 3rd Respondent 16. The 3rd Respondent’s case as contained in its response to the Reference dated 16th March, 2012 and a replying Affidavit sworn on 28th February,2013 by Prof. Githu Muigai, the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, is that the Applicant has no locus standi to institute any proceeding in this Court or even in the African Court because it is neither an NGO with observer status before the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights nor is it an individual with legal capacity within the context of the African Charter. This means that even if the Republic of Kenya had complied with Article 34(6) of 12 | P a g e