255. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. It further argued that the Application was crafted in language that suggested that it relates to human rights violations, in order to persuade the Court to examine it. According to the Respondent Case, it is the case, however, that the Court cannot interfere with the mandate of AU political organs. *** 256. The Court recalls that it has consistently held that compatibility of an application with the Constitutive Act presupposes that it relates to one of the objectives of the Act. In this regard, the Court notes that the present Application is compatible with Article 3(h) of the Constitutive Act, namely, the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights.37 257. The Court notes in the instant case that, categorising an application as relating to peace and security matters does not preclude the possibility that it may also relate to the protection of human rights. Furthermore, even if an applicant has chosen to bring a case before the Court alleging violations of human rights and has not submitted his or her questions to the PSC, this cannot render an application before this Court inadmissible. 258. The Court finds that the instant Application contains allegations of human rights violations and is, therefore, compatible with one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act, in particular Article 3(h). 259. Accordingly, the objection to admissibility on the grounds that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act and the Charter is dismissed. 37 Glory Cyriaque Hossou v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 012/2018, Judgment of 13 November 2024 (merits and reparations), § 37. 59