117. Considering the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection that some of the texts and instruments invoked by the Respondent State are not human rights instruments. c. Objection to material jurisdiction on the ground of non-ratification of human rights instruments invoked by the Applicant State 118. The Respondent State submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction insofar as, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, the instruments which it has jurisdiction to apply and interpret should be treaties which must have been ratified by the State concerned. 119. It submits, however, that neither the Pretoria Declaration nor the PSC Framework Agreement are treaties and, thus, cannot be considered as human rights instruments ratified by the States concerned, under the terms of Articles 3(1) and 7 of the Protocol. * 120. In its Reply, the Applicant State submits that the objection should be dismissed, contending that for the Court’s jurisdiction to be established, ratification is not necessary for the application of certain instruments, taking the nature of such instruments into consideration. It emphasizes that in its constant practice, the Court applies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter “the UDHR”), which is, however, only “a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations [which] is not ratified by the States”, as it did in Franck David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania. In its view, the same should apply to the Pretoria Declaration, the PSC Framework Agreement and any other instrument, as long as the allegations of human rights violations are based on the relevant provisions of human rights instruments. 121. At the hearing, the Applicant State reiterated the content of its written submissions. 30