iii. Consequently, declare all of the Applicant’s requests unfounded; and iv. Dismiss the Applicant’s request for provisional measures in all respects. V. JURISDICTION 15. The Court recalls that Article 3 of the Protocol provides: 1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this 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. 16. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court, “the Court shall make a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction [...] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and the [...] Rules of Court”. 17. Based on the aforementioned provisions, the Court must, in each Application, conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and rule on any objections thereto, if necessary. 18. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise any objection to jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to hear the present Application. Accordingly, it finds, based on the record, that it has: i. Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges violation of the right to defence, the right to life and to physical and moral integrity and the right to participate freely in the government of his country, protected respectively by Articles 7, 4 and 13(1) of the Charter, an instrument ratified by the Respondent State. 6