vii. Render a decision on the phenomenon of States Parties to the Protocol exceeding legal time-limits, which adversely affects the rights of victims in Africa. 21. The Respondent State prays the Court to: i. Declare that it lacks jurisdiction; ii. Declare that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies; iii. Declare that the Respondent State did not violate any human rights; and iv. Declare the present Application inadmissible in its form and on the merits. V. JURISDICTION 22. Article 3 of the Protocol states: 1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in 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. 23. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules “the Court shall make a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ... in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”.3 24. On the basis of the aforementioned provisions, the Court must, in each application, examine its jurisdiction and rule on any objections thereto. 25. In the present case, the Respondent State raises an objection based on jurisdiction on the grounds that the Application does not contain any 3 Article 39(1) of the Rules of Court of 2 June 2010. 7