2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 14. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules “The Court shall ascertain its jurisdiction [...] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 15. Based on the above-cited provisions, the Court must conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 16. The Court notes that, in the present case, the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus rule on this objection before examining the other aspects of its jurisdiction. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 17. The Respondent State submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction on the grounds that under Article 3 of the Protocol, the Court has jurisdiction over all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States. It further submits that all the rights protected by the Court are centred on four rights as set out in the Charter notably: the right to liberty, the right to equality, the right to justice and the right to dignity. 18. The Respondent State submits that the “substance of the Application is vague, unclear, superficial and undefined” insofar as a legislative authority elected in accordance with the law abrogating a State Constitution and adopting a new one cannot be considered a violation of the rights of the Applicant. 19. It further submits that the issue raised by the Applicant falls within the national sovereignty of the African Union Member States which consider it a violation of human rights to infringe the four fundamental rights referred to above or to treat citizens as if they were of lesser value than other human 5