V. JURISDICTION 19. Article 3 of the Protocol states: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over all cases and disputes brought before it concerning the interpretation and Applicants of the Charter, the [...] 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 will decide. 20. Under rule 49(1) of the Rules,2 “[t]he Court shall make a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction [...] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and the [...] Rules”. 21. In view of the foregoing, the Court must examine its jurisdiction and rule on any objections thereto. 22. The Court observes that, in the present case, the Respondent State does not raise any objection to its material, personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. However, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must ensure that its jurisdiction is established in respect of all these aspects before proceeding to examine the Application. 23. As regards its material jurisdiction, the Court finds that it is established insofar as the violations alleged relate to Articles 3(1) and (2) and 7(1)(a) of the Charter, and Article 26 of the ICCPR.3 24. The Court’s personal jurisdiction is also established insofar as the Respondent State is a party to the Charter and Protocol. It has also deposited the Declaration by virtue of which individuals and NGOs which have observer status with the Commission may bring cases directly before 2 Article 39(1) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 June 2010. 3 The Respondent State became a party to the ICCPR on 16 July 1974. 6