Therefore, according to him, the First Instance Division was right to decline to interpret Articles 1(2), 7, 13,26,62,65 and 66 of the Charter and Articles 1, 3, 5 and 34 of the Protocol. 30. As regards the 2nd issue, relating to the alleged delay to deposit the declaration under Articles 5 (3) and 34 (6) of the Protocol, the 1st Respondent submitted that Article 34 (6) of the Protocol does not prescribe any deadline for depositing declarations. Therefore, there was no violation occasioned. Under that Article, discretion is left to each State Party as to the timing of the deposit of its declaration. 31. He distinguished this case from the Katabazi case (supra) to the extent that the delay in depositing a declaration does not in any way constitute a violation of any provision of the Treaty. 32. The 1stRespondent concluded on that issue by contending that the case of Katabazi (supra) cited by the Appellant is not applicable in the instant case 33. With regard to the 3rd issue, namely, whether the 1st Respondent had no duty under the Treaty to supervise the Respondents to comply with their obligations under the Charter, the Protocol, and the Vienna Convention, the 1st Respondent submitted, among others, that under Article 29(1) of the Treaty, the Secretary General has a margin of appreciation. To be moved under that Article, he must be convinced that a Partner State has failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaty or has infringed a provision of the Treaty. The 1st Respondent concluded that a delay to deposit a declaration when there is no constraining time limit to do so, cannot constitute 12