3. Pursuant to Rule 34(1) of the Rules, the Registry acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated 26 May, 2011. 4. By letter dated 10June, 2011, the Registry sought to ascertain from the Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission, States had made the declarationenvisaged if the Respondent under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol. 5. By letter dated 13June, 2011, the Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission had made informed the the Registry that above-mentioned neither declaration; Cameroon and nor Nigeria at the same time attached a list on the status of ratification of the Protocol which indicates that Cameroon had not even ratified the Protocol. 6. The Court notes that Nigeria, a party to the Protocol, has not made the declaration and Cameroon has not even ratified the Protocol. 7. Article 5(3) relevant Non of the Protocol Governmental provides Organizations that: “the (NGOs) Court may entitle with observer status before the Commission and individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with Article 34 (6) of this Protocol”. 8. Article 34(6) on its part provides that: “At the time of the ratification of this Protocol or any time 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”. 9. Read together, the above provisions allow for the Court to be seized directly by an individual only when declaration authorizing such seizure. a Respondent State has made the