Charter. In determining whether or not the Article is inconsistent with the Charter, it falls to be considered alone, and on its own wording and construction. Secondly, a proper understanding of the relationship between the Charter and the Protocol is vital in resolving the issue of alleged inconsistency between them. 15. The relationship between the Charter and the Protocol From the above expose, it is clear that, firstly, the Charter ranks higher than the Protocol; a point which, not surprisingly, the Respondent did not dispute. Secondly, the Protocol was brought about solely to enhance the protection of human and peoples' rights through the Court, in complementarity with the Human Rights Commission. These are the very rights recognized and entrenched in the Charter. 16. To the extent that Article 34(6) denies individuals direct access to the Court, which access the Charter does not deny. the Article, far from being a supplementary measure towards the enhancement of the protection of human rights, as envisaged by Article 66 of the Charter, does the very opposite. It is at odds with the objective, language and spirit of the Charter as it disables the Court from hearing applications brought by individuals against a state which has not made the declaration, even when the protection of human rights entrenched in the Charter, is at stake. We therefore hold that it is inconsistent with the Charter. We do so well aware of Article 30 × Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter - 1. Subject to Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, the rights and obligations of States Parties to successive treaties relating to the same subject matter shall be determined in accordance with the following paragraphs. 2. When a treaty specifies that it is subject to, or that it is not to be considered as incompatible with, an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail. 3. When all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended in operation under article 59, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the later treaty. 4. When the parties to the later treaty do not include all the parties to the earlier one: (a) as between States Parties to both treaties the same rule applies as in paragraph 3; (b) as between a State party to both treaties and a State party to only one of the treaties, the treaty to which both States are parties governs their mutual rights and obligations. 5. Paragraph 4 is without prejudice to article 41, or to any question of the termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty under article 60 or to any question of responsibility which may arise for a State from the conclusion or application of a treaty the provisions of which are incompatible with its obligations towards another State under another treaty. of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regarding the application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter. It is our view that this Article finds no application in the case before us since we are not dealing with two treaties, but with a treaty (the Charter) and a mere protocol to itself (the Protocol). Whether Article 34(6) should be declared null and void or set aside 17. The question arises whether this Court has the competence to declare Article 34(6) of the Protocol null and void and/or to set it aside. The Court is a creature of the Protocol and its competencies therefore derive from the Protocol. Determining whether or not Article 34(6) is inconsistent with the Charter is a matter of interpretation which the Court is therefore competent to do in terms of Article 3(1) of the Protocol. So too, in holding that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this application, the Court derives its competence from Article 3(2) of the Protocol which empowers it to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction in any particular matter before it. In national jurisdictions where the constitution is the supreme law, any law inconsistent therewith would be liable to be struck down by the Court, the latter deriving the power to do so from the constitution itself. In cast), we find no provision in the Protocol empowering the Court to declare null and void and/or to set aside any Article of the Protocol. Therefore, much as such a move may appear to be the logical thing to do in light of our finding of inconsistency, the applicant's prayer is not competent. It is, however, hoped that the problems raised by Article 34(6) will receive appropriate attention. 18. The following finding is made: (a) The Court has jurisdiction to hear this application. (b) Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is inconsistent with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. (c) The Applicant's prayer that Article 34(6) be declared null and void and/or be set aside is denied. 6