with Alticl e 29. The Repu blic of SenegaJ expre ssed the view that 'in accor dance nized by the 32 of the Child ren's Chart er, the Comm ittee is an organ izatio n recog ed under Artic le African Union and its reque st for Advis ory Opin ion is allow 12 68 (1) of the 4(1). ... that the Comm ittee' s reque st is in accor dance with Rule blic of Senegal, Rules as it relates to an issue that is purel y legal" . For lhe Repu of the Child is 'The Afric an Comm ittee of Experts on the Right s and Welfare n the Cour t's indeed founded in seizin g the African Cowt on any matte r withi Welfa re of the jurisd iction ; The Afric an Comm ittee of Expe rts on the Rights and comp ly with tbe Child is an inter- gover nmen tal organization; The CoUti shoul d col settin g up powe rs of interpretation conferred on it under Artic le 3 of the Proto Afric an Court the AfJ-ican Couri on Huma n and Peopl es' Rights; Refer rals to the the Rights and on Huma n and Peopl es by lhe A Crican Comm ittee on Expe rts on objectives of the Welfare of tbe Child are indee d consi stent with the aims and Proto col.' referred to, 30. For the Repu blic of Gabo n, 'After considering all the provisions governing in support of the request made by the Committee, the general principles ofhuman contentious, jurisdictional and quasi jurisdictional proce dure in the field iction of the rights, notably, the relevant Aji-ican instruments in this area. the jurisd nittee is on Court and /hut the Committee, the Ministry is of the view that the C'omr such as the the one hand, entitled to request for an advis01y opinion from AJCHPR, other hand, one currently under consideration',· and /hat, 'the Committee is, on the of the Child.' entitled to seek redress for any alleged cases of violation of the rights to all the The AfTican Comm ission submitted a comp rehen sive response the view that the issues raised in the reque st for an Advis ory Opini on. It expre ssed n the mean ing of Comm ittee could be consi dered as an Afric an Organ izatio n withi re, the African Artic le 4(1) of the Proto col but not as an organ. Furth ermo dered as an Comm ission assert ed that 'the Comm ittee shoul d not be consi ofthe proto col'. interg overn menta l organ izatjo n withi n the mean ing of Artic le 5(1) appre ciatio n of Neve rthele ss, the Afric an Comm ission left all these issues to the the Court. 31. 32. As far as it is conce rned, the Afric an Comm ission concl uded by assert ing Opinion as an "Afri can Lhal the Comm ittee was entitl ed to reque st for an Advis ory ' 2 No 02927/MJ/DDH/MMS, at page 2. 9