regarded as an act of that State”.7 Moreover, the principle of “responsibility of States for the breach of an international obligation” is recognized in international law”.8 57. The Court further recalls Article 1 of the Charter, which states that “[t]he Member States of the Organization of African Unity parties to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them”. 58. The Respondent State is a party to the Charter and to the Protocol, as stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment. The procedure before this Court is therefore consistent with the Respondent State’s obligations as a State Party to the Charter and does not in any way infringe its national sovereignty. 59. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection in these regards. B. Other admissibility requirements 60. Under Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter”. 61. Rule 50(1) of the Rules9 reads: “The Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an Application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and these Rules”. 7 ICJ, LaGrand (Germany v. United States), 27 June 2001; and Difference relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1999 (I), P. 87, para. 62. 8 ECHR, Grand Chamber, IIascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (Application no. 48787/99), Judgment. 9 Rule 40 of the Rules of 2 June 2010. 13