application of the Treaty, but that it has no jurisdiction to interpret Articles 1(2), 7, 13, 26, 62, 65 and 66 of the Charter, nor Articles 1, 3, 5 and 34 of the Protocol. 19. Furthermore, the Appellant contended that the East African Court of Justice has on several occasions held that it had jurisdiction over principles of the rule of law and over matters that impact on human rights. In that regard, he relied among others on the case of James Katabazi v. the Secretary General of the EACJ [Ref No.1 of 2007, Judgment of 20 November 2007]. ISSUE No.2. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the delay by the 2nd , 3rd and 5th Respondents in depositing their respective declarations was not a violation of the provisions of the Treaty, and of the Charter, the Protocol, and the Vienna Convention. With regard to this issue, the Appellant submitted that the 2nd, 3rd,4th and 5thRespondents have signed, ratified or acceded to the Charter and the Protocol. Consequently, the Appellant averred that the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the delay by the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents to deposit their respective declarations was not a violation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(c), 126, 130, 131 of the Treaty, Articles 1(2), 7, 13, 26, 62, 65, 66 of the Charter; and Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol. 20. In addition, the Appellant contended that the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the 2nd , 3rd and 5th Respondents had no obligation to a time frame to expeditiously deposit declarations under Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol to allow their individual citizens and NGO,s to have access to the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (“ 8