23. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State has raised an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus consider the objection to its material jurisdiction (A) before assessing other aspects of its jurisdiction (B). A. Objection to the Court’s material jurisdiction 24. The Respondent State argues that, under Article 3 of the Protocol, the Court complements rather than substitutes a State’s internal domestic mechanisms for redressing human rights violations. In the instant Application, according to the Respondent State, if the Court considered the Applicants’ allegations in relation to section 4(1) of the NEA it would be sitting as a court of first instance to consider a provision that has never been challenged in its domestic courts. In support of its argument, the Respondent State cites the Court’s decision in Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania and submits that “… the Court lacks material jurisdiction to entertain this matter in its entirety…”. 25. The Respondent State’s further argues that “the Application is frivolous and vexatious as it does not establish any human rights which is violated regarding section 4(1) of the National Elections Act.” * 26. In their Reply, the Applicants contest the Respondent State’s arguments and submit that the Court has material jurisdiction to hear the Application. According to the Applicants, the Application “… is based on interpretation of the African Charter as well as other international human rights instruments which the Respondent is a party to and has duty to respect, fulfil and comply.” *** 27. At the outset, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises two arguments against its material jurisdiction. Firstly, that the Applicants are 8