676 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) “State Parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter”. 61. The Court further notes that, where a State becomes a Party to a human rights treaty, international law obliges it to take positive measures to give effect to the exercise of the said rights. 62. Article 1 of the Charter on Human Rights stipulates that: “The Member States of the Organization of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them”. 63. The Court therefore holds that the obligation on the part of State Parties to the African Charter on Democracy and to the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol to establish independent and impartial national electoral bodies is aimed at implementing the aforesaid right prescribed by Article 13 of the Charter Human Rights, that is, the right to participate freely in the Government of one’s country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law. 64. The European Court of Human Rights also came to a similar conclusion when it had to determine, for the first time, complaints regarding the violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to free elections.66 65. In view of the foregoing, the Court, in conclusion, holds that the African Charter on Democracy and the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Governance are human rights instruments within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol, and therefore that it has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the same. C. Temporal jurisdiction 66. The Court holds that, in the instant case, the relevant dates are the date of the entry into force, for the Respondent State, of the abovementioned international instruments ratified by that State, and that of the deposition of the declaration prescribed by Article 34(6) of the Protocol allowing individuals and non-governmental organizations to bring cases directly to the Court. Given that the facts on which the alleged violations are based took place after the aforesaid dates (supra. paragraphs 44 and 48), the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear the case. 6 Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights reads as follows: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The European Court indicated that the above-mentioned Article at first sight looks different from the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols which guarantee the rights. The Court however held that this Article guarantees subjective rights such as the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections (Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium, Judgment of 2 March 1987, series A No 113, paras 46-51).