19. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 20. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus first consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 21. The Respondent State avers that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to determine matters of fact and law which have been determined with finality by its Court of Appeal. It is the Respondent State’s submission that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot extend to the issue of identification of the Applicants in the original criminal case. 22. The Respondent State further contends that this Court cannot entertain the Applicants’ prayers that their conviction should be quashed, their sentencing be set aside, and that they should be released. 23. The Applicants rebut the Respondent State’s submissions and pray that the objection be dismissed given that the Application concerns rights protected in the Charter, which is an instrument that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret and apply. It is also the contention of the Applicants that this Court has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to alleged errors in the domestic proceedings in order to assess whether they were in abidance with provisions of the Charter and other instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. *** 24. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it, provided that the rights of which a 7