A. Objection to the jurisdiction of the Court raised by the Respondent State 30.The Respondent State raised two objections on jurisdiction: one on material jurisdiction, and the other on personal jurisdiction. i. Objection to material jurisdiction 31 .The Respondent State relies on the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Protocol to challenge the material jurisdiction of the Court on grounds that the violations alleged by the Applicant are political and economic in nature, and are in no way related to a fundamental law contained in the Charter, the Protocol or any other relevant human rights instrument to which it is a party. 32.lt argues that, to the extent that the jurisdiction of the Court "opens and closes" on violations of the rights guaranteed in the African Charter, the Protocol or other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned, political rights such as the right to stand for election and stay in power do not fall within the ambit of Article 3(1) of the Protocol. 33. The Respondent State also contends that the prayers for reparation and for damages resulting from the allegations that the conduct of the Respondent State's services tarnished the Applicant's reputation, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. 34. The Respondent State further contends that the Applicant's reference to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is not binding on the Republic of Benin and deprives this Court of jurisdiction, given that the said Declaration has never been ratified by the Republic of Benin. * 35. The Applicant refutes the Respondent State's objection to material jurisdiction and argues that the court may be seized of cases of violation of rights covered by the I