16. 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.”7 17. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every Application, preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction and rule on the objections thereto, if any. 18. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 19. The Respondent State contends that the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on this Application. According to the Respondent State, this Application calls for the Court “… to sit as an appellate court and adjudicate on matters of law and evidence already finalised by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in its judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2011.” * 20. The Applicants, for their part, submit that the Court can consider this Application by invoking its jurisdiction “…in conformity with Article 3 of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules of Court concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, protocol and any other relevant Human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.” *** 21. The Court recalls that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights 7 Formerly, Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6