17. Based on the aforementioned provisions, the Court must examine its jurisdiction and rule on any objections thereto, if any. 18. The Court notes that, in the present case, the Respondent State raises an objection to material jurisdiction. The Court will rule on this objection before examining other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 19. The Respondent State maintains that the jurisdiction of the Court emanates from Article 3 of the Protocol and Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure.3 20. It further contends that the above-mentioned provisions do not empower this Court to rule as an appellate court and, consequently, to examine the present Application, review the judgment of the Court of Appeal, assess the evidence, quash the conviction and sentence, and release the Applicant. * 21. The Applicant submits that the objection be dismissed, arguing that he did not seize this Court as an appellate court, but rather filed an application alleging human rights violations. 22. He further submits that for the above-mentioned reasons, the Court has jurisdiction to examine the Application insofar as the Respondent State in the present case is a State Party to the Charter. He also avers that the Court has jurisdiction insofar as the Application alleges violation of human rights protected by the Charter, to which the Respondent State is a party. *** 3 Rule 26 of the Rules of Court of 2 June 2010 6