its Member States to make a declaration at the time of ratification of the Protocol; that the Protocol is valid in all respects under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and under customary international law and can only be void if there is a conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens); and that as a consequence, the Respondent denies that Article 34(6) of the Protocol is illegal or invalid. 50. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter, the Respondent avers that it has no obligations under this Article which is exclusively for Member States to recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and to adopt legislative or other measures to give them effect. 51. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Charter, the Respondent submits that this Article does not in any way offer the Applicant unrestricted access to the Court, as alleged, or at all. 52. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Charter, the Respondent contends that this Article is on the Applicant's participation in the government of his country, the Applicant's right of equal access to the public service in his country and the right to access to public property and services and it has nothing to do with the obligations of the African Union or access to the Court. 53. On the alleged violation of Article 26 of the Charter, the Respondent avers again that it is not a State Party to the Charter. 54. Finally, with regard to the alleged violation of Article 66 of the Charter, the Respondent submits that this Article applies only to State Parties to the Charter and not to the Respondent. In conclusion; 55. In its response "the Respondent prays the Court to dismiss the Applicant's Application in its entirety." In its oral submissions, the Respondent urges "the Court to determine as a preliminary issue whether the Court can exercise jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae under the application", "prays that the Application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction" and, "denies that Article 1, 2, 7, 13, 26 and 66 of the Charter have been violated and therefore prays that the Application be dismissed." IV. The Jurisdiction of the Court 56. At this stage, the Court has, in accordance with Rules 39(1) and 52(7) of the Rules, to consider the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent and in particular the objection relating to the Court's jurisdiction over the present Application. 57. Article 3(2) of the Protocol and Rule 26(2) of the Rules provide that "in the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide." 58. In order to determine the preliminary objection, it has to be noted that, for the Court to hear an application brought directly by an individual there must be compliance with,inter alia,Article 5(3) and Article 34(6) of the Protocol. 59. Article 5(3) of the Protocol provides that: "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 this Protocol." 60. For its part, Article 34(6) of the Protocol provides that: "At the time of ratification of this Protocol or anytime thereafter, the state shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases under Article 5(3) of this Protocol. The Court shall not receive any petition under Article 5(3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration." 61. As the Court stated in Michelot Yogogombaye v The Republic of Senegal, Application No 001/2008, paragraph 34, "[t]he effect of the foregoing two provisions, read together, is that direct access to the Court by an individual is subject to the deposit by the Respondent State of a declaration authorizing such a case to be brought before the Court." 62. As mentioned earlier, the Applicant submits first that the requirement of the declaration provided for in Article 34(6) of the Protocol applies only to Member States and not to the African Union itself. He concludes that since the Article does not require the Respondent or any of its institutions to make a declaration to accept the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court is competent to entertain his Application. For its part, the Respondent does not specifically address this argument. 63. In the view of the Court, the fact that a non-state entity like the African Union is not required by Article 34(6) of the Protocol to make the declaration does not necessarily give the Court jurisdiction to accept applications brought by individuals against such entity; there may be other grounds on which the Court may find that it has no jurisdiction. In the present instance, what is specifically envisaged by the Protocol and by Article 34(6) in particular is precisely the situation where applications from individuals and NGOs are brought against State Parties. In this regard, Article 3(1) of the Protocol which deals with the jurisdiction of 6