00ois? A. Objection to personal jurisdiction 15.The Respondent State contests the legal capacity of the Applicants to file the Application, on the basis that access to the Court should only be available to individuals rather than to a group of individuals. The Applicants dispute the submission of the Respondent State and aver that they have legal standing before the Court. 16. The Court observes that, as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment, the Applicants are an informal group of one hundred and thirteen (113) individuals. The Court recalls that the Republic of Mali is party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration prescribed under Article 34(6), allowing individuals to seize the Court directly, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol. Accordingly, the Applicants are entitled to file their Application before this Court. Therefore, the Respondent State's objection in this regard is dismissed. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 17.With regard to material, temporal and territorialjurisdiction, the Court notes that they have not been challenged by the Respondent State and that nothing on file indicates that it has no jurisdiction in this regard. lt therefore finds that it has: material jurisdiction, since the Applicants allege the violation of the right to health provided under Articles 16 and 24 of the Charter, and 12 of the ICESCR; the right to a fair trial under Articles 7(1) and 26 of the Charter, and of the right to be tried without delay as provided under Articles 2(3) and 14 of the ICCPR; all instruments to which the Respondent State is a party, thus giving the Court the power to interpret and apply them in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol, 6 A7 YT\\tQ- e-