autonomous specialiseJ treaty body similar to the Commissio n which had to be expressly mentioned because it is equally an not "intergovern mental" organisation.' 92. The Court accepts that U1e purposive theory or presumption is one of the tools, if not the most important, of interpreting or construing a legal instrument in order to determine whether a statute applies to a particular circumstanc e, and if yes, what arc the consequenc es. The Court is also aware that there has been a global movement towards the use of the purposive approach over the other approaches which suggested Lhat one start with Lhe literal meaning, then go on to the golden approach (still according to the plain meaning, but wilh a slight modificatjo n to avoid Lhe absurdity), and if a sensible result is still not reached, then it would use the purposive approach - interpret according to what interpretatio n would best achieve the purpose of the act. 93. 45 The Comt would like to recall, at the oulset, that while the Committee has not been mentioned among institutions that can bring cases to the Court under Article 5 (1) of the Protocol, it has been specifically authorised to do so in the subsequent 2008 Protocol on the merger of the current Cowi with the Court of Justice of lhe African Union to create the Arrican Court of Justice and Human Rights. 94. The Court notes thal this action by the policy organs confinns firstly, the view of the Cow1: that it is highly desirable that U1e Committee should have access •s Aharon Barak, Purpostve Interpretation m Lsw, Princeton Universrty Press, 2005. See also John F. Mannrng,'Competlng et Avarlable (2006) 2009 Re VIew, Law Fordham 74 Coherence•, Statutory About Presumptions http://ir. fawnet. fordham .edu/flr/vol74/lss4/ 15 28