000628 V. JURISDICTION 17. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, "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 instruments ratified by the States concerned." ln accordance with Rule 39(1) of the Rules, "the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction...' A. Objection to materia! jurisdiction '18. The Respondent State contends that the jurisdiction of this Court has not been invoked because the Applicant has neither made reference to nor asked for the interpretation or application of the Charter, the Protocol or any relevant human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. Further, it contends that the Applicant has not met any of the other requirements listed in the Rule 26(1) (b-e) of the Rules. 19.The Respondent State avers that the Applicant has merely listed his perceived grievances with the application of the Civil Procedure Act in relation to the originating Civil Case No. 163 of 2000, Civil Appeal No. '108 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2011. The Respondent State further argues that the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction by relying on the alleged misuse of the Civil Procedure Act during the hearing of the trial case. 20.The Applicant contends that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. This is because it has the competence to intervene in the event of violations of human rights which is the position he finds himself, his rights having been violated by the domestic courts. 21.|t is clear from the Court's jurisprudence that an Application is properly before it as long as the subject matter of the Application raises alleged violations of rights 7 e-