0bliXsL Objection on the Second and Fifth Applicants' lack of standing before the Court 19.The Respondent State has raised an objection that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction with regard to Kayumba Nyamwasa and Safari Stanley, the Second and Fift h Applicants, respectively. 20.The Respondent State claims thatthe Second and Fifth Applicants do not have /ocus standi before this Court because they were convicted in Rwanda for genocide- related crimes and crimes of threatening state security, respectively. The Respondent State further claims that they both absconded from Rwanda after their convictions and that they are thus fugitives from justice. 21.While the Respondent State acknowledges that it has made a Declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) of the Protocol, it also states that in making the Declaration, it did not envisage that persons convicted of serious crimes, such as these two Applicants, would be allowed to file matters before this Court. The Respondent State argues that it would be a travesty of justice for the Court to give /ocus standito Applicants who have committed serious crimes. The Respondent State therefore prays the Court to deny the Second and Fifth Applicants the standing before it and to reject their Application. 22.fhe Applicants claim that their convictions have no relevance to the Application and that any person "even if a convict in a proper court of justice has right of standing to petition". *** 23.The Court recalls thatArticle 5 of the Protocol lists the entities that can submit cases to the Court and sub-Article 3 thereof provides that: "The Court may entitle retevant Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission, and 6