5 10. It is not however the case of the jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis of the Court even if the Respondent did not raised a formal objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction; these objections were indeed implicjtly raised in the submiss ions on the Prelimi.nary objections to the admissibility of the Application from the 2nd AppJicanL 2) Material jurisdiction ll . In its Brief in Response to the Application of the 2"d Applicant, the . Responci ent argues .m 11s 3rd , 4th, an d s th ob" . . ·b·]· to t11e a dmtsst 1 1ty, respectively, that the "Application contains provisions inconsistent with Rule 26 (I) (a) of the Rules of Court ( ... ) and Article 7 of the Protocol ( ... )", that it is "relying on the Treaty establishing the East African Community which was not in existence at the time the Applicant took the Government of Tanzania to Court in 1993" and that " it is retrospective with regard to the Protocol" (see also the Public Hearing of 14 June 20 12, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 26, !ignes 36-37, p. 27, lines 1-9, and p. 27, lines 15-26, .respecti vely). 12. In support of its 3rd Preli minary objection, the Respondent argues that the Treaty establishing the East African Community of30 November 1999, is not "a human right s instrument" within the meaning of Article 7 of the Protocol and Rule 26 ( I) (a) of the of Court and that, as a result, "it is extraneous to this case'' (Paragraphs 19-20 of the Brief in Response; see also the Public Hearing of 14 June 2012, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 26, lines 19-20). In its Rejoinder, the 2nd Applicant noted that