IV. Republic of Cape Verde 8 ; v. Burkina Fas09 ; and vi. Republic of Burundi 10 Observations of the Republic of Uganda i. 25.ln its observations as to whether SERAP is an African Organization within the meaning of Article 4 of the Protocol, the Republic of Uganda notes that "the ... author of the Request [that is, SERAPj, does not qualify as an intergovernmental organization", and prays the Court to "disallow the Request". 26.0n the question as to whether the African Court has jurisdiction to issue advisory opinion on the Request, Uganda argues that: "the Court in the instant case is not vested with jurisdiction to hear this matter. This submission is buttressed by the provision in Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. We invite the Court to find that the matter before it needs interpretation of both law and fact. Whereas, the Articles are self- explanatory, the Applicant, with due respect, did not show how it has been aggrieved or how the Charter has been violated. For these reasons, the Court is implored to find that there is no need for an Advisory Opinion and thus disallow the request". fl. Observations of the Republic of Zambia 27.ln its observations, the Republic of Zambia submits that in considering the Request by SERAP, the Court must first determine whether or not SERAP is entitled to bring a request before it in light of the provisions 7 On 28 March 2014. a On 29 July 2014. 9 On 22 September 2014. 10 On 1 June 2016.