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. 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.”3 17. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must preliminarily establish its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if there are any. 18. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State has raised an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus, first, consider the objection to its material jurisdiction before assessing other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court 19. The Respondent State, relying on Article 3 of the Protocol, argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application. According to the Respondent State, “… this Application is calling for the Honourable Court to sit as an appellate Court and deliberate on matters of evidence and procedure already finalised by the Court of Appeal …” It is the Respondent State’s contention, therefore, that it is not part of the mandate and jurisdiction of the Court to sit as an appellate Court. The Respondent State cited the Court’s decision in Ernest Mtingwi v. Malawi to buttress its argument. * 3 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6