TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 59 Separate opinion: OUGUERGOUZ 1. I am of the view that there is a violation by the Respondent State of the rights guaranteed under Articles 2, 3(2), l0 and 13(1) of the African Charter; however, I do not think that the reasons invoked in arriving at such a conclusion have been articulated with sufficient clarity in this judgment. Moreover, the Court should have first pronounced itself on the issue of its jurisdiction to deal with the two Applications before considering the issue of the admissibility of the said Applications; it should equally have set aside more substantial developments to the treatment of these two important issues. I. Jurisdiction of the Court 2. The Court has first to ensure that it has the jurisdiction to deal with an Application before considering its admissibility. It has to do so proprio motu even if the Respondent State has not raised a preliminary objection in that regard. In the exercise of its contentious function, the Court can indeed only use its jurisdictional powers against State Parties to the Protocol and within the limits set by that instrument regarding the status of entities entitled to refer matter to it and the type of disputes that can be submitted to it. It is only when an Application is filed against a State Party to the Protocol and within the limits set by the said Protocol that its admissibility could be considered by the Court. Besides, it is in that chronological order that issues of jurisdiction and admissibility are dealt within the Protocol (Articles 3(1), 5 and 6; see also Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). 3. In the Brief in Response to the Application of the 1st Applicants, the Respondent raised two objections on the admissibility of the Application; in its Brief in Response to the Application of the 2nd Applicant, the Respondent raised five objections on the admissibility of the Application. ln its Briefs in Response to the two Applications, the Respondent however addressed both issues of admissibility and merits. For reasons related to the proper administration of justice, the Court therefore decided not to suspend the proceedings on the merits of the case but to join consideration of the objections raised by the Respondent to that of the merits in both Applications, as allowed under Rule 52(3) of the Rules. The Rejoinders of both Applicants as well as the oral pleadings of all the Parties thus dealt with the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of both Applications as well as with the merits of the case. 4. It should be noted here that the Respondent did not formally raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. Although in its Brief in Response to the second Applicant (pages 9-11, par. 19-23), it presented its five preliminary objections as objections to the admissibility of the Application, its 3rd, 4th and 5th objections should in fact be considered as objections relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. 5. The Court’s jurisdiction to deal with an Application brought against a State party and originating directly from an individual or a nongovernmental organisation is mainly governed by Articles 3(1) and 5(3) of the Protocol. This jurisdiction must be considered both at the