- 10and (5) of the African Charter, as well as in Rules 34(2), 40(2), (3) and (5) of the
Rules of Court and should therefore be declared inadmissible;
2. In the alternative, on the merits:
And, in the event of the Court ruling that the Application is admissible and
contrary to all expectations, to dismiss it as unfounded;
29.
During the Public Hearings of 20 and 21 March 2014, the Applicant does not
amend his submissions; the Respondent State for its part maintains its position but
raises a new objection, challenging the Applicant's status as a Journalist.
Ill. Jurisdiction of the Court
30.
Rule 39 (1) of the Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), provides that
the Court must first conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction. The Court notes
in this regard that even if the Respondent State raises no objections; it is still required
to satisfy itself, proprio motu, that it has the jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione
materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci, to hear the Application.
31.
First, on its ratione personae jurisdiction, the Protocol requires the State
against which action is brought to have ratified the said Protocol and other
relevant human rights instruments mentioned in Article 3 (1) thereof, but also, in
regard to Applications from individuals or non-governmental organizations, to
have made the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to consider
such Applications, in conformity with Article 34 (6) of the Protocol (Article 5(3)).
32.
In the present case, the Court notes that Burkina Faso became a Party to the
Charter and to the Protocol on 21 October 1986 and 25 January 2004 respectively, and
that the declaration required under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol was deposited on 28 July
1998 and took effect on the date of entry into force of the Protocol, that is, 25 January
2004. The Court therefore finds that it has jurisdiction over the Respondent State.
L~~.
ID~.s-·~