V. JURISDICTION 22. The Court observes 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. 23. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”5 24. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 25. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises two objections to its jurisdiction. Firstly, it argues that the Court does not have material jurisdiction and, secondly, that the Court lacks temporal jurisdiction. The Court will examine these objections before considering other aspects of jurisdiction if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 26. The Respondent State asserts that the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief of releasing the Applicant. Noting Article 27(1) of the Protocol and in reference to the Court’s Jurisprudence in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, the Respondent State submits that the prayer sought by the Applicant to be released from custody is beyond the mandate of the Court since the Applicant has not provided specific or compelling circumstances to warrant 5 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 8