8 second instrument which is m fact a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. 3) Temporal jurisdiction 17. ln its written submissions, the Respondent did not raise any Preliminary objection to the temporal jurisdiction of the Court, other than that on the Treaty establishing the East African Community. At the Public Hearing of 15 June 2012, the Respondent however challenged the temporal jurisdiction of the Court as follows: "our contention with retrospectivity is hinged only on the aspect of the Eleventh Constitutional Amendment Act No. 34 of 1994, which was enacted before the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania ratified the Protocol to the African Charter establishing the African Court. The Court cannot adjudicate on matters wh ich transpired prior to Tanzania having ratified the instruments and placing the United Republic of Tanzania under the jurisdiction of this Court, hence the issue is retrospective" (Public Hearing of 15 June 2012, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 27, lines 16-21 ); the Respondent added as follows: "the internationa l principJc is that international treaties are not retrospective. [ ... ] This principle is applicable to the United Republic of Tanzania with regard to Article 34 (6) of the Protocol to the African Charter establishing an African Court" (Public Jlearing of 15 June 2012, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 27, lines 30-31 and p. 28, lines 1-5). 18. At the same Public Hearing, the 2nd Applicant for his part stated that: "the violations that were alleged goes before the setting up of the Charter