beings and undeserving of life and dignity. The Respondent State further submits that in their sovereignty, States consider that human rights are violated when they do not guarantee the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination, but instead are guilty of genocide, torture or enslavement. 20. Finally, the Respondent State submits that the Court should decline jurisdiction to entertain the Application insofar as the Applicant does not bring before the Court an injustice committed against her. * 21. The Applicant prays that the objection be dismissed. In support, she argues that Article 20 of the Charter protects the inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination and to freely determine their political status to pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen. She states that this provision enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination or the right of peoples to freely determine their destiny as a right that must be respected. She challenges the Respondent State’s arguments limiting the scope of the right to self-determination to the extreme cases of genocide, torture and enslavement, and maintains that her Application does indeed relate to the violation of human and peoples’ rights protected by the Charter. 22. The Applicant prays the Court to find that her application seeks to reestablish the rule of law in Tunisia and respect for the rights of Tunisian citizens who freely adopted a constitution in 1959. *** 23. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it, provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State. To this end, the Court has 6