17. In its response, the Respondent State prays the Court to: i. Declare the Application inadmissible for non-compliance with the provisions of Article 56(5) and (6) of the Charter; ii. Find that the Applicant does not substantiate the alleged violation of rights committed by the State of Côte d’Ivoire; iii. Dismiss all of the Applicant’s prayers as unfounded; and iv. Rule in accordance with the law as regards costs. V. JURISDICTION 18. The Court notes 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. 19. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 20. Based on the above provisions, the Court must, in each Application, conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 21. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise an objection to its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it must, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, 7