any stage before or after the judicial dispute arose. The Respondent State concludes that none of the Applicant’s human rights was violated. * 26. In his reply, the Applicant submits that the Respondent State cannot rely on a sweeping interpretation of the rules of international law on the comprehensive concept of human rights to shy away from its legal and moral responsibility vis-à-vis acts of its officials and judges that cause citizens serious prejudice. 27. The Applicant alleges that he followed the legal process to acquire ownership of the property through auction sale and would have been successful but for the erroneous application of the provisions of the law by the courts, which caused him prejudice. 28. According to the Applicant, the national courts violated an explicit procedural rule of auction sale and such an act constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial. *** 29. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has “jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State”. 30. The Court further reiterates its jurisprudence that for it to assume material jurisdiction, it is sufficient that the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned.3 3 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, §§ 34-36; Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Said Ally Mangaya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, § 18; Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba 7