*
122. In its Response, the Respondent State asserts that the Applicant State’s
arguments must be dismissed insofar as, first, the requirement of ratification
of human rights instruments, as provided for in Articles 3(1) and 7 of the
Protocol, confers jurisdiction on the Court to hear applications relating to
interpretation and application of such instruments.
123. It contends that the fact that the Court declared that it had jurisdiction to deal
with alleged violations of the UDHR does not remove the requirement of
ratification of human rights instruments, since the Court’s jurisdiction was
based on the fact that the UDHR had attained the status of customary
international law. Citing the decision in Franck David Omary v. United
Republic of Tanzania, it asserts that an applicant’s reference to the UDHR
has no effect on the Court’s jurisdiction as long as the alleged violation was
also provided for in a treaty ratified by the State concerned.
124. According to the Respondent State, the Pretoria Declaration and the PSC
Framework Agreement are not treaties and cannot, as such, be described
as “any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States
concerned.” It submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction insofar as the
Application is based on violations of the provisions of the Pretoria
Declaration and/or the PSC Framework Agreement.
125. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its written
submissions. It submitted that the requirement that a treaty invoked before
the Court must have been ratified by the parties emanates from Article 3(1)
of the Protocol.
***
126. The Court recalls that it has found that the Pretoria Declaration and the
Addis Ababa Framework Agreement are not human rights instruments,
within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, as they are not treaties.
31