members, as well as other citizens of East Africa who would wish to challenge human rights violations in the African Court. 10. That the complaints made in the Reference are therefore well founded and the Applicant is deserving of the declaratory orders set out elsewhere above. Case for the 1st Respondent 11. The 1st Respondent filed a response to the Reference on 8th March, 2012 and submissions on 6th August, 2013 and his case is as follows: i) that no cause of action is disclosed against him on a plain reading of Article 34(6) of the Protocol which neither sets a time limit for the making of declarations nor does it render the making of such declarations mandatory. ii) that no provision of the Treaty obliges the 1st Respondent to compel a State Party to make a declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol and the Reference is therefore misguided. Further and in any event, this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the Reference as it is being called upon to interpret provisions of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Establishment of the African Court and neither Articles 6, 7(2), 8(1)(c), 13, 27(1) and 30 of the Treaty confer such jurisdiction. That the right forum to address the Applicant’s complaint is the African Court through the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and not this Court. 12. Regarding the 1st Respondent’s obligations under the Treaty, it is his case that he has no supervisory powers over the Partner States as to their obligations under the African Charter and the Protocol and, therefore, there has been no 11 | P a g e