23. The Court recalls that it has held that “an organisation may be considered as ‘African’ if it is registered in an African country and has branches at the subregional, regional or continental levels, and if it carries out activities beyond the country where it is registered.”8 24. In the instant Request, the Court notes that the Author is registered in a Member State of the AU, to wit, the United Republic of Tanzania and that it has structures at the national and regional levels as an umbrella organization of national and regional lawyers’ associations. The Court also notes that PALU undertakes its activities beyond the territory where it is registered. 25. The Court recalls that, and as confirmed by the AU Commission’s Legal Counsel, on 8 May 2006, the Author and the AU signed an MoU to co-operate in undertaking activities concerning the rule of law, promoting peace and integration, and protecting human rights across the continent. The signing of an MoU is an accepted way by which the AU recognises non-governmental organisations.9 The Court finds, therefore, that the Author is an organization recognised by the AU within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Protocol. 26. Consequently, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to deal with this Request. B. Material jurisdiction 27. The Author submits that “this Request for an Advisory Opinion is a legal matter, relating to the guarantees for the effective protection of the right to participate in Request for Advisory Opinion by L’Association Africaine de Defense des Droits de l'Homme (Advisory Opinion) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 637, § 27. 9 The Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, and Others (Advisory Opinion), § 49. See also SocioEconomic Rights and Accountability Project (Advisory Opinion), §§ 56 à 65. 8 8