i. Dismiss the Applicant’s prayer for reparations in its entirety with costs; ii. V. Grant any other relief(s) the Court may deem fit to grant. JURISDICTION 16. 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. 17. Pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”5 18. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 19. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises one objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will first examine this objection before considering other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 20. The Respondent State claims that this Court is not vested with appellate jurisdiction to “acquit the Applicant from prison.” The Respondent State further argues that the Applicant has not adduced any violation of human rights which he alleged to be occasioned to him. Instead, he only mentioned 5 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6