21. The Respondent State prays the Court to grant the following orders with respect to the merits of the Application: i. That the Respondent State has not violated Article 17(1) of the Charter, Article 11 of the African Children’s Charter, and Article 12 of the Maputo Protocol. ii. That the Application be dismissed for want of merit. iii. That the cost of the Application be borne by the Applicants. V. JURISDICTION 22. The Court observes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to 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. 23. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 24. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 25. The Court notes that the Respondent State claims that it is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate this application because the Applicants are aggrieved with the public declarations issued by some of the Respondent State’s officials and Regulation No. 4 of the Education Regulations (Expulsion and Exclusion of Pupils from Schools) of 2002 which are both challengeable under the national courts of the Respondent State in 8