245. According to the Respondent State, in implementing Articles 5(2) and 9 of the Constitutive Act, and in achieving the aforementioned principles and objectives, the Assembly of the AU adopted the PSC Protocol as a permanent policy organ whose primary mission is to address issues of peace and security in Africa. It argues that the PSC Protocol clearly defines the modalities and procedures to be followed for the peaceful resolution of matters of peace and security between Member States. Article 16 of the PSC Protocol recognises that regional mechanisms are part of the AU’s security architecture. It underscores that the AU remains the primary custodian of peace and security in Africa. 246. The Respondent State argues that, as the Applicant State is a member of the AU and a State Party to the Constitutive Act and the PSC Protocol, it is required, under Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of the PSC Protocol, to recognise and respect the authority of the PSC in matters of peace and security, and to cooperate with and facilitate its work. 247. The Respondent State further contends that since the matters raised in the Application relate wholly to peace and security, the Applicant State is required by the Constitutive Act and the PSC Protocol to first refer any grievance to the PSC, whose intervention will be in accordance with the modalities set out in the Constitutive Act and the PSC Protocol. 248. The Respondent State alleges that by masquerading a political matter involving peace and security as a human rights matter, the Applicant State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Constitutive Act and the PSC Protocol. According to the Respondent State, referring matters of peace and security to the Court distorts and undermines the object and purpose of the Constitutive Act, as well as the clearly defined mandate and function of the PSC, and is therefore inconsistent with the Constitutive Act. 249. The Respondent State notes that in Communication Spilg and Mack & Ditshwanelo v. Botswana, the Commission ruled that: 57