* 91. In its Response, the Respondent State argues that it is essential in the instant case, as the Court held in Anaclet Paulo v. United Republic of Tanzania, that the subject matter of the Application relate to rights protected by the Charter or any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. In its view, Article 3(1) of the Protocol and the Court’s jurisprudence is consistent and clear on this point. 92. Citing the Court’s judgment in Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l'Homme (APDH) v. République de Côte d'Ivoire, the Respondent State emphasises that the relevant criteria for determining whether a treaty is a human rights instrument is that it must expressly enunciate subjective rights accruing to individuals or groups of individuals and impose mandatory obligations on State Parties for consequent enjoyment of such rights. 93. In its view, the first criterion, that is, express enunciation of the subjective rights of individuals or groups of individuals, requires actual express enunciation (by the relevant instrument) of the specific rights that individuals should enjoy, noting that it is not the case for the instruments listed in paragraph 79 of this Ruling. 94. Regarding the second condition relating to mandatory obligations on imposed on States Parties, the Respondent State contends that in the APDH v. Côte d’Ivoire judgment, the Court held that a treaty need not provide for mandatory obligations on States. Rather, it makes reference to “the prescription of obligations on States for meaningful enjoyment of human rights”. 95. As regards the Charter of the United Nations, the Respondent State agrees that while the Court may draw inspiration therefrom, the mere fact that the 23