i. Find that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s rights provided under Article 2 of the Charter; ii. Declare that the conviction of the Application was lawful; iii. Hold that the Appeals before the High Court and Court of Appeal were properly and lawfully conducted; iv. Hold that the Applicant continue to serve his sentence; v. Dismiss the Application for lack of merit; vi. Order the Applicant to bear the costs of this Application. 17. In Response to the Applicant’s submissions on reparations, the Respondent State prays the Court to: i. Dismiss the [Applicant’s] prayers in their entirety; ii. Declare that the interpretation and application of the Protocol and the Charter does not confer appellate criminal jurisdiction to the Court to acquit the Applicant; iii. Declare that the Respondent State did not violate the Charter or the Protocol and that the Applicant was convicted in accordance with the law; iv. Dismiss the Application; v. Make any other Order this Court might deem right and just to grant under the prevailing circumstances. V. JURISDICTION 18. 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. 6