2 such a conclusion have been articulated with sufficient clarity in this Judgment. Moreover, the Court should have first pronounced itself on the issue of its jurisdiction to deal with the two app ljcations before considering the issue of the adm issibility of the said applications; it should equally have set aside more substantial developments to the treatment of these two important issues. I) Jurisdiction of the Court 2. The Court has first to ensure that it has the jurisdiction to deal with an Application before considering its adm issibility. lt has to do so proprio motu even if the Respondent State has not raised a preliminary objection in that regard. In the exercise of its contentious function, the Court can indeed only use its jurisdictional powers against State Parties to the Protocol and within the limits set by that instrument regar ding the status of entibes entitled to refer matter to it and the type of disputes that can be submitted to it. It is only when an application is filed against a State Party to the Protocol and within the limits set by the said Protocol that its admissibility could be considered by the Court. Besides, it is in that chronological order that issues of jurisdiction and admissjbility are dealt with in the Protocol (Articles 3 (I), 5 and 6; see also Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). 3. In the Brief in Response to the Appli cation of the Jst Applicants, the Respondent raised two objections on the admissibili ty of the Application; in its Brief in Response to the Application of the 2"0 A pplicant, the