iv. Dismiss the Application; v. Find that the Respondent State did not violate any of the rights of the Applicant guaranteed by Article 3(1) (2) of the Charter; vi. Find that the Respondent State did not violate any of the rights of the Applicant guaranteed by Article 5 of the Charter; and vii. Find that the Application is unfounded and consequently dismiss it. V. JURISDICTION 13. 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. 14. Pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “the Court shall conduct preliminarily examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 15. Based on the above provisions, the Court must conduct an examination of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 16. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Respondent State raises an objection based on lack of material jurisdiction. The Court will, therefore, consider the said objection (A) before examining other aspects of jurisdiction (B) if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 17. The Respondent State argues that this Court would be acting as a trial court and as an appellate court if it were to rule on questions of law that were 5