of Article 4(1) of the Protocol and Rule 68(1) of the Rules. Zambia concludes that: "SERAP falls within the category of institutions permitted to request advisory opinion of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, as per Article 4(1) of the Protocol and Rule 68(1) of the Rules of Court, as it appears on the list of civil society organizations which have been granted observer status by the [African Union Commission]" under the auspices of the AU. This fact implies recognition by the AU. Consequently, SERAP has, for purposes of requesting for advisory opinions of the Court, the requisite legal standing". iii. ObseNalions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 28.The Federal Republic of Nigeria submits that SERAP is not an African Organization, adding that "there is a clear distinction between the AU and an organ of the AU. Recognition by an organ of the AU is not the same -as recognition by the AU". 29. On SERAP's contention that its Request for Advisory Opinion is not subject to the provisions of Article 34(6) of the Protocol, Nigeria argues that "Article 34(6) has effectively barred the Court from entertaining the request from SERAP, being an NGO registered in Nigeria". iv. ObseNations of the Republic of Cape Verde 3D. In its observations, the Republic of Cape Verde argues that the Request may, a priori, raise the issue as to SERAP's legitimacy to make such a Request before the Court, and submits that: I' One may assume that the Republic of Zambia must have been referring here to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Page 9 of 19 ~f,,~ ~ \-e'-