8 second instrument which IS m fact a resolution of the United Nat ions Gene ral Assembly. 3) Temporal jurisdiction 17. ln its written submissions, the Respondent did not raise any Pre li minary objection to the temporal jurisdiction of the Court, other than that on the Treaty establishing the East African Community. At the Public Hearing of 15 June 2012, the Respondent however challenged the tempora l jurisdiction of the Court as follows: "our contention w ith retrospectivity is hinged only on the aspect of the Eleventh Constitutional Amendment Act No. 34 of 1994, wbich was enacted before the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania ratified the Protocol to the African Charter establishing the African Court. The Court cannot adjudicate on matters which transpired prior to Tanzania having ratifie d the instruments and placing the United Republic of Tanzania under the jurisdiction oJ this Court, hence the issue is rctro::;pectivc" (Public Hearing of 15 June 201 2, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 27, lines the Respondent added as follows: "the intemational principle is that international treaties are not retrospective. I... 1 Thi s princ iple is appl icable to the United Republic of Tanzania with regard to Article 34 ( 6) of the Protoco l to the African Charter establ ishing an African CoUI't" (Public Hearing of 15 June 20 l2 , Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 27, lines 30-31 and p. 28, lines 1-5). 18. At the same Public Hear ing, the 2m.l Applicant for his part stated that: "the violations that were al leged goes be fore the setting up of the Charter