68. In OMCT v. DRC (fn 38 supra), the Commission invoked the Maputo Protocol to guide its interpretation of Articles 2 and 18(3) of the African Charter according to Article 60 of the Charter but did not apply the Maputo Protocol directly. That notwithstanding, the Commission still proceeded to consider its competence to apply the Maputo Protocol and relied on Articles 27 and 32 to confirm its competence. As discussed throughout this case, before the establishment of the Court, Articles 27 read with 32 of the Maputo Protocol authorize the Commission to interpret and apply the Protocol directly and not just as an interpretive guide for the Charter. The Commission's analysis in the above Communication has the effect of confirming its material jurisdiction over the Protocol buts stops short of doing so by finding violations only on the Charter. This Commission considers that the above case could have applied the Maputo Protocol directly as the alleged violations occurred before the operationalization of the Court. 69. While the above Communication cannot be regarded as locus classicus for determining the Commission's competence post-establishment of the Court, the contextual reading adopted is particularly instructive. The Commission in its analysis determined that it was competent to 'interpret the provisions of Article 18(3) of the :Charter in ·c;ross-reference _to those of the Maputo Protocol as to their application and implementation'. On that basis, it found a ' ... violation of the provisions of Article 18(3) of the Charter, in cross-reference to those of the abovementioned Maputo Protocol'. In that same case, the Commission read Article 7(1) (a) of the Charter in cross-reference to Article 26 of the Charter. As such, notwithstanding its reliance on Article 60, the Commission clearly went beyond the use of the Maputo Protocol as an interpretive guide and effectively interpreted and applied the Protocol. The Commission went as far as to claim that the Protocol is 'pegged to the Charter, structurally and substantially'. If the Charter may be interpreted within the context of the Protocol, then the reverse also applies. 70. As an aside,the Comm·ission would like to caution the belief that the Charter on its own sufficiently ·encompasses the various provisions of the Maputo Protocol, if this were the case, the adoption of the Protocol would not have been necessary. Only areading of the Charter within the context of the Protocol leads to this result. For the appropriate protection of the substantive rights of women in Africa therefore, the Commission must interpret and apply the protocol directly and cannot merely offer an extensive interpretation of the Charter. Such an exercise would amount to an unauthorized expansion of the substantive provisions of the Charter which may be frowned upon by those States Party to the Charter that have not ratified the Protocol. ! 71. Nevertheless, the Cmnmission adopted a similar contextual readin OAU Refugee Convention vis-a-vis the 1951 UN Convention Protocol. There, the Commission dismissed the Complainant's the OAU Convention should be read as superior to the UN Instr 1/ _.__....,,._. . ,._ o _J ' ,~( ~u 0 ,) I '"'._~ \ -~.1. <i_.0 4 FR1c 1-1'<- - ,;;;.._rv,1: Er