46. In his Response, the Applicant maintains that, in his Application, he has invoked those provisions of the Charter that have been violated as well as the principles enshrined in the OAU Charter as prescribed in Articles 5 and 34 (6) of the Protocol and Rule 33 of the Rules of Court. 47. At the Public Hearing and as indicated above (supra, para 31), Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Court was competent as long as the rights, violation of which is alleged, are guaranteed by the Charter and any other applicable human rights instrument. 48. As regards what the Respondent considers as erroneous invocation of the Articles of the Protocol on which the jurisdiction it had already disposed of the Court is grounded, the Court recalls that of this issue (supra, para 33) and does not therefore need to revert to it. 49. On the argument that the Applicant allegedly did not cite the relevant Articles of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and of the Charter, the Court reaffirms that that situation does not render it incompetent to examine the Application®, nor does it make the said Application inadmissible. 50. The Court notes that what is important for an Application to be compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African violations alleged Union in the Application and the Charter is that, in their substance, are susceptible to be examined the by reference to provisions of the Constitutive Act and/or the Charter and are not manifestly outside the scope of Application of these two instruments. ® See supra, note 6. aa 18 NG AZ Re ¢ 6