APDH v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668 3) 673 Mr Ibourahéma M. BAKAYOKO, Magistrate; Director, Protection of Human Rights and Public Freedoms, Ministry of Human Rights and Public Freedoms. 35. At the same Hearing, the Judges put questions to which the Parties provided answers. IV. Prayers of the parties 36. The following prayers were presented by the Parties in the written procedure: The Applicant: 37. In its Application, APDH prays the Court to rule that the aforementioned Law No 2014-335 is not in conformity with the African Charter on Democracy and, consequently, order the State of Côte d’Ivoire to review the said law in light of its international commitments. 38. In its additional pleadings, the Applicant prays the Court to: i) ii) Declare and rule that its Application is well founded; Declare and rule that the Ivorian Law No 2014-335 of 5 June, 2014 (sic) on the Independent Electoral Commission especially the new Articles 5, 15, 16 and 17 thereof, violates the right to equality of everyone before the law as well as the right to an independent and impartial national electoral body with responsibility for management of elections as provided under Articles 10(3) and 17(1) of the African Charter on Democracy; iii) Consequently, order the State of Côte d’Ivoire to make its electoral body compliant with the provisions of the aforesaid Charter. The Respondent: 39. In its Response, the Respondent State prays the Court to rule that the Application is unfounded and, consequently, order the Applicant to withdraw the same. 40. In its additional pleadings, the Respondent State prays the Court to declare the Application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies and if the Court declares the Application admissible, to rule that it is not founded in law and consequently dismiss the same. 41. The Parties reiterated their prayers during the Public Hearing. V. Jurisdiction of the Court 42. According to Rule 39(1) of the Rules, the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction; and shall, in that regard, satisfy itself that it, successively, has personal, material, temporal and territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. A. Personal jurisdiction 43. The Protocol provides that the State against which an action has been instituted must not only be a Party to the Protocol, but also, with respect to cases instituted by individuals or NGOs, it must have made and deposited the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to