discloses the violation of rights protected by the Charter and thus, the court has jurisdiction. 00088,1 1 8. The Court, relying on Article 3 of the Protocol, has consistently held that it has material jurisdiction if the Application brought before it raises allegations of violation of human rights; and for it to exercise its jurisdiction, it suffices that the subject of the Apptication relates to the rights guaranteed by the Charter or any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned. j 19.|n the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants raise allegations of violation of human rights protected under Artictes 1,2,3,4, 5, 6 and 7 of the charter. By virtue of Article 3 of the Protocol, the determination of the said allegations falls within the ambit of the Court's mandate of interpreting and applying the Charter and other international instruments ratified by the Respondent State. 20.Accordingly, the Court has the power to consider and make determination on the Application. 21. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection herein and holds that it has materialjurisdiction. 1 See A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (merits) (2015) I AfCLR 465 g 45; Frank David Omary and others v. United Republicof Tanzanta(Admissibility) (2014) I AfCLR *AgrrZnxomaryufa,iziiia(Admissibitity),'), S 115; Peter Joseph Chacha v Tanzania (admissibility) (2014i AfcLR 39'8, r j+; apbri."tion llo.'joiloro. S Judgment of 21 10912018 (Merits and Reparations), Anaclet Pauto v uniiel Repubiic ot Tanzania ("Anaclet P_aulo v Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)"), $ 25; Application No. 001/20ts. .tuOgment of 7t12lZO1B (Merits and Reparations), Armand Guehi v united Repubiic of Tanzania ('Armand Gueiiv Tanzania qierijls and Reparations)), S 31; Application No. 024115. Judgment of 711:zlzol} (Merits and nepara'tionsJ, l uverema Wangoko Reparations)"), g 29. v llnited Republic of Tanzania (Werema Wangoko'v Tanzania (Merits ant 6 a