72. On other hand, as regards the application by this Court of the provisions of the Vienna Convention, it would be simply illogical -if not downright absurd – for this Court which is (itself a creature of a Treaty, and whose very raison d’être is the interpretation of that Treaty), to be barred from applying the provisions of the Vienna Convention. In this connection, we need only refer to two of the Articles of that Convention for an authoritative statement in the matter, namely Article 31 and Article 32(b). Those Articles prescribes the primary canons of construction for interpretation of treaties, and the supplementary means of such interpretation. 73. We are, therefore, of the view that the East African Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to interpret the Charter in the context of the Treaty. Consequently, the Appellant succeeds on Issue No.1. 74. We reiterate what we said above, that the wording of the Protocol, and particularly so the phrase “… or any time thereafter…’’ in Article 34 (6) of that Protocol, allows an elastic margin of discretion within which State Parties may deposit their declarations. It does not provide for any constraining time frame beyond which a State Party which has not yet deposited its declaration can be said to have violated the Protocol. In the result, we find no violation of the Charter, or of the Protocol; nor indeed, of any of the enumerated provisions relied upon by the Appellant. 75. Accordingly, the Appellant fails on of Issue No.2. 24