complement and reinforce the functions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights”. The Applicant concludes therefrom that all the principles enumerated in the enshrined Charter in the Constitutive will completely be Act and the meaningless rights if they cannot be recognized and defended before a competent Court. 25. In conclusion: The Applicant prays the Court to: - Declare that Article 34(6) of the Protocol is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitutive Act and the Charter and is therefore null and void. - Declare that Article 34(6) is null and void because it is already so in light of the jus cogens laws set out in the Charter. B. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT 26. Asa preliminary objection, the Respondent admissibility of the Application on the raises the issue of the grounds that it is baseless, frivolous, vexatious and amounts to an abuse of process; the Applicant has no capacity to seize the Court being a national of a State which has not yet made the declaration contained in Article 34(6) of the Protocol; it is neither party to the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the Charter nor the Protocol. It cites Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in support of its allegations.’ Se “A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent, ‘ H R j] Ly)