ii. That, the Application has not met the admissibility requirements provided in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules3 of Court and it is therefore inadmissible and be duly dismissed; iii. That, the Application has not met the admissibility requirements provided in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules4 of Court and it is therefore inadmissible and be duly dismissed; and iv. That, the Application is inadmissible and should be dismissed with costs. 14. On the merits of the Application, the Respondent State also prays the Court to order that: i. [it]did not violate the Applicant’s human rights provided under Article 2 of the Charter; ii. [it] did not violate the Applicant’s human rights provided under Article 3(2) and (3) of the Charter; iii. [it] did not violate the Applicant’s human rights provided under Article 7(c) of the Charter; iv. The Application be dismissed for lack of merit; v. The Applicant’s prayers not be granted; vi. The Applicant not be awarded reparations; and vii. Costs be borne by the Applicant. V. JURISDICTION 15. The Court observes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the […] Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 3 4 Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court adopted in September 2020. Rule 50(2)(f), ibid. 5