The alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court: 67. The Defendant raised the lack of jurisdiction of this Court, alleging, in summary, that from the jurisprudence of this Court, it is understood that appeals against decisions of national courts do not fall within its jurisdiction and that for the Court to rule on the legality of preventive detention, it would necessarily have to go through an interpretation of the aforementioned provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ensure its conciliation, which this Court does not consider itself competent to do. 68. The Applicant did not reply. 69. Based on the Defendant's submission, it is for the Court to ascertain its own jurisdiction. 70. To do so, it must first take into consideration both the legal texts governing its jurisdiction and the nature of the question put before it by the Applicant, based on the facts as alleged by the Applicant. See the case CHUDE MBA v. REPUBLIC OF GHANA, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/13, in CCJRL (2013) p. 349§52. 71. Thus, it is from the analysis of the application lodged by the Applicant that the Court will verify whether the matter falls within its jurisdiction. 72. In this sense this Court pronounced in the case BAKARY SARRE AND 28 ORS v. REPUBLIC OF MALI, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/1, in CCJRL (2011) p. 67, §25, that: “The competence of the Court to adjudicate in a given case depends not only on its texts but also on the substance of the initiating application. The Court accords every attention to claims made by applicants, the pleas-in-law invoked, and in an instance where human rights violation is alleged, the Court equally carefully considers how the parties present such allegations. The Court therefore looks to find out whether the human rights violation as observed constitutes the main subject-matter of the 13