2. The Application is devoid of merits; and 3. Costs be borne by the Applicants. V. JURISDICTION 14. 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. 15. The Court further recalls that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction… in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”2 16. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must preliminarily establish its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if there are any. 17. In the instant case the Respondent State objects to the personal jurisdiction of the Court. The Court will therefore examine the said objection before considering other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to the personal jurisdiction of the Court 18. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants did not attach documentary evidence proving that they have observer status before the Commission. It argues, therefore, that they do not have a right to file the Application before the Court as this was a breach of Article 5(3) of the Protocol as read together with Article 34(6) of the Protocol. 2 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6