The Court's Assessment 51. The Court notes that Artic le 3 (1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 (1) (a) of its Ru les govern its material jurisdiction regardless of whether an Appl ication is filed by individuals , the Commission or States. Pursuant to these provisions, the materia I jurisdiction of the Court extends "to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, [its] Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned" . The only pertinent consideration for the Court in ascertaining its material jurisdiction in accordance with both Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 (1) (a) of its Rules is thus whether an Application relates to an alleged violation of the rights protected by the Charter or other human rights instruments to which the Respondent is a Party. In this vein, the Court has held that "as long as the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned, the Court will have jurisdiction over the matter''.2 52. In the instant Application, the Applicant alleges the violation of several rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter and other international human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent, especially , the ICCPR and the ICESR. Accordingly, the Application satisfies the requirements of Article 3(1) of the Protocol. 53 . In circumstances where the Commission files a case before the Court pursuant to Article 5 (1) (a) of the Protocol, Article 3 (1) of the same provides no additional requirements to be fulfilled before this Court exercises its jurisdiction . Article 58 of the Charter mandates the Commission to draw the attention of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government where communications lodged before it reveal cases of series of serious or massive violations of human and peoples' rights. With the establishment of the Court, and in application of the principle of complementarity enshrined under Article 2 of the Protocol, the Commission now has the power to refer 2 See Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Judgment on Merits) 20 November 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Alex Thomas Case) paragraph 45 and Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Judgment on Merits) 3 June 2016 (hereinafter referred to as Mohamed Abubakari Case) paragraphs 28 and 35.