36. In the instant Request, the authors have requested for an interpretation of the Protocol in order to detem1ine whether the Committee is entitled to request for an advisory opinion and Lo submH cases to the Court under Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol. In view of the nature of the Request, and given U1e fact that one of Lhe issues to be determined is precisely related to lhe personal jurisdicti on of the Court, 37. namely, whether the Committee is one of the entities envisaged under Article 4(2) of the Protocol and Rule 68 (2) ofibe Rules, the Court does not have to consider it at this stage since it wilJ be considered along with the substance. 38. With regard to material jurisdictio n, the Court is required to consider whether the request is on legal matters relating to human rights and is satisfied that indeed that is the case. 39. The Court is of the view that given the nature of the Request there is no need to consider jurisdiction ratione temporis and jurisdiction ratione loci, because these two issues do not arise in a request for advisory opinion. 40. By virtue of Article 4 (1) of the Protocol, the Court "may provide" an opinion and, therefore, has discretion on whether or not to provide an Advisory Opinion on the request submitted to il. Having considered this matter, the Court tinds no compellin g reason nollo provide an opinion. 41. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 (2) of the Protocol and Rule 68 (2) of tbe Rules, and as indicated above) the Court is required to determine, in terms of 11