32. The African Union could only be brought before the Court to answer for its own conduct. For that to happen, however. it would be necessary for it to be allowed to become a party to the Protocol and for it to be willing to do so which would require that it be beforehand allowed to become allowed to accede to the African Charter and for its own conduct have accepted to do so. As party to the Charter and to the Protocol, the African Union could in any circumstance be brought before the Court to answer for the conduct of its Member States parties to the Protocol. 33. In the final analysis, one might wonder about the need for the Court's reasoning in paragraph 66 to 72 of the Judgment because in paragraph 73, it asserts that "its jurisdiction is clearly prescribed by the Protocol" and that "the present case in which the Application has been filed against an entity other than a State having ratified the Protocol and made the declaration, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court". That was actually all what the Court needed to state from the outset to reject Mr Falana's Application. 34. I am therefore of the opinion that the Court ought to have spared itself issuing this Judgment which raises more questions than it resolves. 35. Let me further observe that consideration of the "constitutionality" of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, to which the Court was urged by the Applicant so as to declare the said Article "illegal, null and void" as it is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 7, 13, 26 and 66 of the African Charter, does indirectly raise the issue of the sovereign right of the States Parties to the Protocol to accept or not the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications from individuals or non-governmental organizations. 36. This debate, no matter how legitimate, should in my view have been raised in some other forum. The Court, for its part, ought not to have accepted to serve as a forum for such debates when it manifestly lacked the jurisdiction to do so; in so doing it took the risk of jeopardizing its credibility. 37. Same as Mr. Falana, I am in favour of the automatic access to the Court by individuals and non-governmental organizations; it is mv view however that it is a matter that comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of Member States of the African Union. I hold the opinion that this important matter is more like to be discussed by the Court as part of its advisory jurisdiction at the initiative of the entities mentioned in Article 4 of the Protocol or as part of the procedure of amendment of that instrument considering the possibility availed to the Court under Article 35(2) to make proposals in that regard "if it deems it necessary". 38. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that, given the Court???s manifest lack of jurisdiction ratione personae. Mr. Falana's Application ought to have been rejected de plano through a simple letter from the Registrar. 39. Subsidiarily, I am also of the view that the Court having decided to hear and rule on this Application. it should have provided clearer reasons for rejecting it (see my reasoning in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 above) and not by invoking, in a contradictory manner, Article 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol. 40. To conclude, I again invite my colleagues to revisit the current practice of the Court which consists in systematically issuing "Judgments" or "Decisions" on its lack of jurisdiction whereas it "manifestly" lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an Application. The only advantage in my view of such a practice of the Court is to draw public opinion to issues as those raise in the instant case or to alleged violations of human rights; but is that truly the mission of the Court? Fatsah Ouguergouz Judge Robert Eno Registrar 1 On the distinction made by the court between a "Judgment" and "Decision", see paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of my dissenting opinion attached to the decision in the case of Ekollo Moundi Alexandre v. The Republic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2 The expression " States Concerned" in the English version of Article 26(1) of the protocol was translated "Etats intéressés" in the French version of the same Article. 3 See the Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", adopted by the Steering Committee for Human Rights of the 5