2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 23. The Court also notes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”4 24. The Court observes that the Respondent State raises an objection to material jurisdiction which is based on this Court being asked to sit as a court of first instance; as an appellate court and; to quash and set aside the Applicants’ conviction and sentence. The Court will therefore consider this objection before examining other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 25. The Respondent State submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to sit as a court of first instance or to act as an appellate court and as such, it lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter. 26. It further avers that this Court does not have jurisdiction to quash and set aside the Applicants’ conviction and sentence, since both orders were upheld by the Court of Appeal, its highest court. Finally, it contends that this Court is not empowered to order the release of the Applicants from prison. * 27. The Applicants assert that the material jurisdiction of the Court extends to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned. Citing the case of Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania, they aver that the Court has jurisdiction over an application as long as the subject matter of the application involves alleged violations of 4 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 8