n of the Com mitt ee in the Cou rt to lhe Cou tt, and; seco ndly , that the initial omi ssio tend ed cons eque nces . ProLocol may very well have be attributable to unin best inter ests of the child The Co uti is pers uade d that the argu men ts that the uade d, as the C01mnittee held, shou ld be para mou nt are well founded. Tt is aJso pers that the best inte rest of the child , in the Nub ian Chil dren case refenecl to earlier, requ irem ents lhat could hind er shou ld in som e insta nces , trum p teclmical acce ssib ility to cour ts of just ice for children. 95. argu men ts but pe1iaining In the view of the Cou rt, these are well -fou nded the Cou rt relat ing to the rights of larg ely to spec ific and st1bstantive matters befo re Cou rt all alon g in ensu ring that the child. Inde ed, this has been the appr oach of the e of prom otin g acce ss in orde r all its deci sion s are based on the over ridin g obje ctiv 96. to ensu re prot ectio n of hum an rights. falls unde r the prov ision The Cou rt is cons ciou s that the Chil dren 's Cha rter stale s conc erne d'. lt also 'any othe r rele vant hum an righ ts instrument ratified by the 97. ng bod y of the Clul dren 's Cha rter note s that lhe Com mitt ee is the prim ary rnon itori the Com mitt ee havi ng acce ss to und er whi ch the Cou rt has juris dicti on, and that cise of its man date conc erni ng the Cou rt wou ld facilitate mor e effe ctive exer serio us violatio ns of child ren's rights. the use of the purp ostv e Nev erth eless, Lhe Cou rt is not conv ince d that ous intention of the legis latur e, appr oach can over ride the clea r and unam bjgu nary mea ning of the text in whic h can be discerned from lhe plain and ordi s that the mea ning of the text is ques tion . In the .instant Req uest , the Cou rt note Cou rt unde r Article 5 of the clea r and unam bigu ous on who can access the law that whe re a treat y sets out an Prot ocol . Inde ed, it is a well -kno wn prin ciple of 98. ~--.. f 29