17. In accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “[t]he Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction … of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 18. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every Application, preliminarily conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 19. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State has raised an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will, thus, first consider this objection before assessing other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 20. The Respondent State raises three points in support of its objection. First, it contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction because “the Applicant is serving a lawful sentence for the commission of an offence as provided by valid penal statute …”. Second, it contends that the Court has no jurisdiction “with regard to the prayer sought by the Applicant which relates to the quashing of the conviction order and sentence and release of the Applicant from lawful custody.” Third, it asserts that “the Court is not vested with appellate nor criminal jurisdiction to determine matters of law and fact determined by domestic Courts in the Respondent State and quashing lawful conviction and sentence.” * 21. In his Reply, the Applicant contends that the Court is vested with jurisdiction to hear this Application under Articles 1 and 3(1) of the Protocol since his allegations raise human rights violations. He also argues that the Respondent State has failed to cite the specific part of Article 27 of the Protocol which makes his claim for release from prison offensive. He submits, therefore, that “this Court is vested with power to hear this case being on the Charter and the Protocol.” 6