vii. Find that the trial against the Applicant was fair; viii. Dismiss the Application in its entirety for lack of merit; and ix. Order the Applicant to pay the costs of this Application. V. JURISDICTION 15. 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. 16. On the basis of Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must, in every application, preliminarily, conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any.4 17. In the present Application, the Court observes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will therefore examine the said objection before considering other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 18. The Respondent State avers that the mandate of the Court emanates from Article 3 of the Protocol which does not vest it with jurisdiction to adjudicate over matters of evidence and procedure decided and concluded by the Court of Appeal as the highest court of the Respondent State. The Respondent State further submits that the case against the Applicant was 4 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6