pleadings submitted by the Applicant. The Court concludes thus, that the defaulting party was duly notified. 27.On the basis of the foregoing, the Court will now determine whether the other requirements under Rule 55 of the Rules are fulfilled, that is: it has jurisdiction, that the application is admissible and that the Applicant's claims are founded in fact and in law. Vi. JURISDICTION 28.Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, "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". Furthermore, under Rule 39 (1) of its Rules, "the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...”. 29. After a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and having found that there is nothing in the file to indicate that it does not have jurisdiction in this case, the Court finds that it has: i. material jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the Applicant alleges a violation of Articles 7(1)(a)(d) and 26 of the Charter, Articles 2(3)(c) and 14(1) of the ICCPR to which the Respondent State is a party and Article 10 of the UDHR?. 2See Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 248, §76; Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 314, §33.