16. The Respondent State prays the Court to: i. Declare that it lacks personal jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations of Articles 9(1) and 14 of the Charter, in relation to the Respondent State; ii. Declare the Application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies and for having been filed outside the stipulated timelimit; iii. Find that the Respondent State did not violate any of the Applicants’ rights; iv. Dismiss the Applicants’ financial claims and dismiss all of their claims as unfounded; and v. Order the Applicants to pay costs. V. JURISDICTION 17. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Protocol reads 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, the Protocol, and any other relevant Human Rights instruments ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 18. Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court provides that “The Court shall ascertain its jurisdiction and the admissibility of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 19. Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the Court must, in each case, conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and rule on objections to jurisdiction, if any. 6