38. Counsel challenged the authorities of the Court’s jurisprudence relied upon by the Appellant to support the view that the Court has jurisdiction. Counsel contended that these authorities are inapplicable. They do not suggest that the EACJ has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the provisions of the African Charter. 39. Counsel submitted that Article 5(3) of the Protocol is silent as to the time within which a State Party must deposit a declaration. He, therefore, agrees entirely with the Findings and Decision of the First Instance Division. 40. Regarding the remedies sought, Counsel invited the Court to dismiss the Appeal with costs to the 2nd Respondent. THE 3RD RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 41. As regards the 1st issue, the 3rdRespondent’s answer was an emphatic “No”. Pursuant to Articles 9, 23, 27 of the Treaty, Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submitted that the Court is a creature of the Treaty. The Appellant bears the burden to demonstrate that the Court has legally assumed a specific jurisdiction to interpret the 42. On the alleged delay by the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents to deposit their declarations, Counsel submitted that a delay cannot be established unless if it is measurable against some continuum stipulated in the Charter. Where, as here, the delay cannot be measured, it is not possible to found a claim for violation of the rights of the Applicant, (now the Appellant). Counsel concluded that violations of the Charter are triable under the Charter itself. 14