iii. THAT, Article 5 of the said Protocol provides as follows:“1. The following are entitled to submit cases to the Court:a) The Commission; b) The State Party which has lodged a complaint to the Commission; c) The State Party against which the complaint has been lodged to the Commission; d) The State Party whose citizens is a victim of human rights violation; and e) African Inter-governmental Organizations. 2. When a State Party has an interest in a case, it needs to submit a request to the Court to be permitted to join. 3. The Court may entitle relevant non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission and individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with Article 34(6) of the Protocol.” iv. THAT during the pendency of the proceedings, Rwanda complied with the provision of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, by depositing its declaration, dated 22nd January, 2013. v. THAT the 1st Respondent got information of such allegations, but failed to carry out his supervisory role. vi. THAT when the above declaration was brought to the attention of the Applicant, the Reference as against Rwanda was abandoned on 22nd August, 2013. Accordingly, the only issue to address at the end of the Judgment of the First 6