ix. The Application is dismissed for lack of merit; x. The Applicant's request for reparations is dismissed; xi. The Applicant must bear the costs of the Application; xii. The Respondent State is entitled to any other remedies the Court may deem fit to grant. 23. In its Application for intervention and the substantive pleadings filed thereafter, the Intervening State prays the Court to order that: i. The Application has met the admissibility requirements and should be declared admissible; ii. The Application to intervene has met the jurisdiction and admissibility requirements under Rules 35(3)(b) and 53 of the Rules; v. iii. The Applicant's rights to a fair trial have been violated; iv. The Applicant's execution must be stayed as a provisional measure. JURISDICTION 24. Pursuant to Rule 39(1) of the Rules, "the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...". A. Objections to material jurisdiction 25. The Respondent State avers that the Application is asking this Court to act as a tribunal of first instance given that the Applicant's allegations that his statement was taken in a language unknown to him and without the presence of his lawyer are being raised for the first time. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant should have raised these allegations during the trial proceedings or before the Court of Appeal. 26. During the public hearing, the Respondent State reiterated this argument and extended the same to the allegations that it arbitrarily disposed of the Applicant's property, never facilitated him with consular assistance and did not investigate several pieces of core evidence, which could have led to other suspects besides him. 8