17. In its Response, the Respondent State prays the Court to: i. In the main, declare the Application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies; ii. V. In the alternative, dismiss the Applicant’s claims as unfounded. JURISDICTION 18. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides: 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. 19. Under Rule 49 (1) of the Rules of Court, 3 “[t]he Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 20. Based on the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every application, preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction and rule on the objections thereto, if any. 21. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise any objection to its jurisdiction. 22. Having found that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has: i) Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges the violation of human rights protected by the Charter, to which the Respondent State is a Party. 3 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court of 2 June 2010. 5