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. 22. The Court notes pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, that it “shall preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 23. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, therefore, the Court must preliminarily establish its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 24. The Court notes that there is no objection to its jurisdiction in this case. However, it must satisfy itself that it has the jurisdiction to consider the instant Application. In this regard, the Court notes that there is nothing on record indicating that it does not have jurisdiction and therefore, it finds as follows: i. It has material jurisdiction insofar as the Applicants allege the violation of rights guaranteed under Articles 3(2), 7(1), 7(1)(a) and 13(1) of the Charter, to which the Respondent State is a party. ii. It has personal jurisdiction insofar as the Respondent State has ratified the Protocol and deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol as established earlier in this judgment. iii. It has temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. 7