5. Thus, in the first part, we shall examine the state of the matter, i.e. the envisaged readings of Articles 3 and 7 of the Protocol in determining the Court's sub.lectmatter jurisdiction. ln the second part, devoted to the second wave of decisions, the use of Articles 3 and 7 will evolve. Article 3 and 7 of the Protocol through the Court's doctrine and case-law 6. ln our view, the two Articles 3 and 7 of the Protocol should be read together, as one sheds light on the other. They are complementary. For the reasons that follow, they cannot be separated. The Court's subject-matter jurisdiction is therefore based on both the first paragraph of Article 3 and Article 7 of the Protocol. We shall first present a restrictive reading of these provisions (A) before turning to their reference in certain decisions of the Court which we describe as first wave (B). A. 7. A restrictive reading of Articles 3 and 7 of the Protocol Article 3(1) of the Protocol, on thelurisdiction of the Court, reads asfollows "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". Article 7, on applicable law, states in one sentence that "The Court shall apply the provisions of the Charter and any other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the States concerned". 8. Different readings of these two Articles have emerged. Reading them separately, some have argued that their functions should not go beyond the title given to them by the successive drafters of the Convention. Article 3(1) applying strictly and exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Court and the other, Article 7, 3