2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 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.”5 17. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of 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 first examine this objection before considering other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 19. There are two aspects to the objection of the Respondent State to the material jurisdiction of the Court. Firstly, the Respondent State argues that, under Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26(1)6 of the Rules of Court, this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to quash both conviction and sentence passed by a State Party’s domestic courts. The Respondent State claims that the present Application is calling upon this Court to sit as a domestic supreme appellate court which is contrary to the jurisdiction of this Court. 20. Secondly, the Respondent State asserts that the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief of setting the Applicant at liberty. 21. For these reasons, the Respondent State prays that the Application be dismissed. * 5 6 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Corresponding to Rule 29(1) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 6