34.The Court notes that, in actual fact, the Application does not indicate the articles or human rights instruments guaranteeing the rights alleged to be violated. 35. However, in his Reply to the Respondent specifies the rights allegedly violated state's Response, the Applicant as well as the international instruments which guarantee the said rights. lt follows that the Application raises allegations of violations of human rights guaranteed by international legal instruments applicable before this Court and ratified by the Respondent state, particularly the charter, the lccpR and the lcEScR. 36. The Court notes its established case law on this issue and reiterates that the rights allegedly breached need not be specified in the Application; it is sufficient that the subject of the Application relates to the rights guaranteed by the Charter or by any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the State concernedl. 3T.Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection and rules that it has materialjurisdiction to hear the case. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 38.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorialjurisdiction is not contested by the Respondent State. Besides, nothing on record indicates that the Court does not have personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. The Court accordingly holds that: (i) it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has made the declaration prescribed under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, which enabled the Applicant to bring this Application direcfly before this Court, pursuant to Article 5 (3) of the Protocol; 1 see Application 00512013: Alex Thomas v. United Repubtic of Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015 g 4b; Frank David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, Application OO112O12 Judgment of 28 Mirch 2014, $ 115; Pefer Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, Application OO312O12, Judgment olf z8 March 2014, 1 S 15. G 9 *g 14