60 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) personal level (ratione personae) and at the material (ratione materiae), temporal (ratione temporis) and geographical (ratione loci) levels. A. Personal jurisdiction 6. Article 3 of the Protocol, entitled “Jurisdiction”, deals with the general jurisdiction of the Court, whereas Article 5, entitled “Access to the Court’’, deals specifically with the personal jurisdiction of the Court. Though they are different in form, the issues of the “jurisdiction” of the Court and “access” to the Court are closely related in the context of the Protocol. The Court’s jurisdiction is also treated under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, to which makes reference Article 5(3) mentioned above. 7. Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, read together, show that direct access to the Court by an individual or a non-governmental organization is subject to the deposit by the Respondent State of a special declaration authorizing such access. 8. ln the instant case, the Court has first ensured that the Respondent State is one of the State Parties to the Protocol which have made the declaration under Article 34(6). As the 1st Applicants are two nongovernmental organizations, the Court has similarly ensured that they enjoy observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Court has then concluded that, these two cumulative conditions being met, it has jurisdiction ratione personae to deal with the two Applications. 9. The issue of the jurisdiction ratione loci of the Court was not raised by the Respondent and there can be no dispute in that regard considering the nature of the violations alleged by the Applicants. The Court did not therefore need to consider the issue of its jurisdiction ratione loci. 10. It is not however the case of the jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis of the Court even if the Respondent did not raised a formal objection challenging the Court’s jurisdiction; these objections were indeed implicitly raised in the submissions on the Preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application from the 2nd Applicant. B. Material jurisdiction 11. In its Brief in response to the Application of the 2nd Applicant, the Respondent argues in its 3rd, 4th, and 5th objections to the admissibility, respectively, that the “Application contains provisions inconsistent with Rule 26(I)(a) of the Rules of Court (...) and Article 7 of the Protocol (...)”, that it is “relying on the Treaty establishing the East African Community which was not in existence at the time the Applicant took the Government of Tanzania to Court in 1993” and that “ it is retrospective with regard to the Protocol” (see also the Public Hearing of 14 June 2012, Oral Hearing Verbatim Record, p. 26, lines 36-37, p. 27, lines 1-9, and p. 27, lines 15-26, respectively). 12. In support of its 3rd Preliminary objection, the Respondent argues that the Treaty establishing the East African Community of 30 November 1999, is not “a human rights instrument” within the meaning of Article 7 of the Protocol and Rule 26(I) (a) of the of Court and that, as