15. Indeed, Article 6 (1) only allows the Court to “request the opinion of the Commission” on the admissibility of a “case instituted under Article 5 (3)” of the Protocol. Article 6 (3), for its part, authorizes the Court to ask the Commission to itself make a determination on the admissibility of an application. Absence of any reference to Article 5 (3) of the Protocol further suggests that consideration of admissibility could apply not only to cases filed by an individual or a non-governmental organization but also to those filed by a State Party to the Protocol or an African inter-governmental organization. 16. Apart from this latter proposition, my interpretation of Article 6 (3) is corroborated by Rule 119 of the Rules of the Commission, entitled “Admissibility under Article 6 of the Protocol”, and worded as follows: “1, Where, pursuant to Article 6 of the Protocol, the Commission is requested to give its opinion on the admissibility of a communication pending before the Court or where the Court has transferred a communication to the Commission, it shall consider the admissibility of this matter in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter and Rules 105, 106 and 107 of the present Rules. 2. Upon conclusion communication of referred the to examination it under of the Article 6 admissibility of the of the Protocol, the Commission shall immediately transmit its opinion or its decision on the admissibility to the Court”. 17. This provision of the Rules of the Commission leaves no doubt as to the fact that in both situations envisaged in Article 6 (1) and (3) of the Protocol, the Commission considers that it is in duty bound to establish the admissibility of an application relating to a matter over which the Court has declared that it had jurisdiction; otherwise it would be difficult to understand why Rule 119 (2) provides for the prompt transmission to the Court of the Commission’s opinion or “decision”. The prompt transmission to the Court of the Commission’s decision on the admissibility of an application would indeed be meaningless if the Court were no longer to play any role in the handling of the case; the underlying idea is that once it has deemed an application admissible, the Court may then embark on a consideration of its merits. 18. Unlike those of the Commission, the Rules of the Court do not provide real clarification on the purpose of the transfer envisaged in Article 6 (3) of the Protocol. Rule 29 (5) of the Rules of the Court indeed reads: “a) Where the Court decides to transfer a case to the Commission pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Protocol, it shall transmit to the Commission a copy of