The Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the dispute with regard to the abovementioned decisions, since the applicants were not subjects referred to in Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution concerning persons who may bring disputes before the Court of Justice. The General Court also rejected the other application: it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Justice had to address the question of the legal nature of the Constitution. By commenting on the obiter dictum concerning Annex IV (of the Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court has in fact created “the ground for the legal unity” of the peace agreement as a whole[9], which also implies that all annexes are in hierarchical equality. .