iii. Order the Respondent State to pay him United States Dollars SeventySeven (USD 77,000) for his dependants as indirect victims for moral prejudice suffered. 11. With respect to jurisdiction, admissibility and merits, the Respondent State prays the Court to: i. Declare that the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Application; ii. Declare that the Application has not met the admissibility requirements provided for under Article 56(5) of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court and it is therefore inadmissible and be duly dismissed; iii. Declare the Application inadmissible and dismiss it with costs; iv. Make an order that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s human rights provided under Article 3(1)(2), and 7(c) of the Charter; v. Order that the Respondent State did not violate its obligation under Article 1 of the Charter; vi. Find that the Applicant was tried and convicted in accordance with the laws of the Respondent State and international human rights standards; vii. Dismiss the Application for lack of merit; viii. Dismiss the Applicant’s prayers; ix. Dismiss the Applicant’s prayers for reparations; and x. V. Order that the costs be borne by the Applicant. JURISDICTION 12. 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. 5