- 11 -
33.
The Court must however satisfy itself that it also has jurisdiction over the
Applicant. In this regard, the Court notes that the Application is filed on behalf of an
individual, lssa Lohe Konate, by Barrister John R.W.D. Jones and Barrister YakareOule (Nani) Jansen.
34.
The Court therefore finds that it has the ratione personae jurisdiction to hear
this matter both in regard to Applications by the Respondent State as well as by the
Applicant.
35.
Secondly, on the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court, Article 3 (1)
of the Protocol provides that the Court's jurisdiction "shall extend to all cases
and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of
the Charter, this Protocol and any other human rights instruments ratified by
the States concerned".
36.
In the instant case, the Applicant alleges violation, by the Respondent
State, of Article 9 of the Charter, Article 19 of the Covenant as well as Article
66 (2) (c) of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty. The Court notes in this regard that
the Respondent State is a Party to the Charter and also to the Covenant as of
4 April 1999, when the latter instrument became enforceable in regard to the
Respondent, as well as the Revised ECOWAS Treaty which it ratified on 24
June 1994.
37.
Consequently, the Court has the ratione materiae jurisdiction to consider the
matters raised in the Application.
38.
On its ratione temporis jurisdiction, the Court is of the view that in the instant
case, the relevant dates are those of the entry into force, with regard to the
Respondent State, of the Charter (21 October 1986), the Protocol (25 January 2004),