15. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall ascertain its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 16. On the basis of the provisions above the Court must, in each application, ascertain its jurisdiction and rule on any objections thereto, if any. 17. In the present case, the Respondent State raises an objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court, on which the Court shall rule (A) before considering the other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary (B). A. Objection based on material jurisdiction 18. The Respondent State argues that the Court’s jurisdiction is governed by Article 3(1) of the Protocol and relates solely to human rights disputes. 19. The Respondent State submits that the present Application concerns contractual relations between the Applicant and SBEE, on the one hand, and, a civil servant on the other hand, which entities are legally distinct from the Respondent State. 20. The Respondent State contends, referencing the matter of Lohe Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, that the Court declared that it has no jurisdiction to assess the merits or otherwise of national judicial decisions and that it is not a “court of appeal against decisions handed down by national courts”. 21. The Applicant prays the Court to dismiss the objection. Referencing the Judgment of 29 March 2019 in Sébastien G. AJAVON v. Republic of Benin, he submits that it is the nature of the fundamental rights violated that determines the Court’s jurisdiction. He points out that in the Judgment of 20 October 2016 in Eleftherios g. Kokkinakis - Dilos kykloforiaki A.T.E. v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found human rights violations in relation to non-performance of a contract. 7