Application for lacking merits. It further prays the Court to dismiss all of the Applicants’ prayers and to reject the Applicants’ prayers for reparations. The Respondent State finally prays that the Applicants bear costs of this Application. V. JURISDICTION 15. The Court observes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 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. 16. The Court further recalls that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction … in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”3 17. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must preliminarily establish its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 18. In the present Application, the Court observes that the Respondent State objects 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 19. First, the Respondent State avers that the Court is not vested with the power to review or evaluate evidentiary matters adduced during the Applicants’ trial before the domestic Courts. According to the Respondent State, the fact 3 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6