Instance Division was whether to award costs against the Republic of Rwanda. vii. THAT with regard to the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents, it is not contested that they have not filed any declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) of the Protocol which is the gist of the Application. III. THE APPELLANT’S SUBMSSIONS 16. The Appellant presented legal arguments for each ground of Appeal, starting with the first issue as follows:Issue No.1. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law in holding that it had no jurisdiction to interpret the Charter, its Protocol and other relevant international conventions and instruments to which the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents are parties. 17. In support of its argument on this 1st issue, the Appellant relied especially on the fact that the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents are all signatories of the Charter, and the fact that there are several provisions in the Treaty which create obligations for the EAC Partner States to protect human rights in accordance with the Charter. In this respect, the Appellant cited Articles 5, 6(d), 7(2), 126, 130, 131 of the Treaty; and took into account Article 23 of the same Treaty which provides, among others, that the Court shall be a judicial body which shall ensure the adherence to law in the interpretation of and compliance with the Treaty. 18. Having cited the above Articles of the Treaty, the Appellant drew a legal implication that the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that it had jurisdiction over the interpretation and 7