the Court to grant an order for his release. The Respondent State, therefore, prays that the Application should be dismissed. * 27. The Applicant did not make any submissions on this point. *** 28. 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.6 29. The Court notes that the Respondent State’s objection concerns the claim that it does not have jurisdiction to grant an order for release. 30. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to grant different types of reparations, including release from prison, provided that the alleged violation has been established.7 31. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection raised by the Respondent State in this regard and holds that it has material jurisdiction. B. Objection to temporal jurisdiction 32. The Respondent State also contests the temporal jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the alleged violations raised by the Applicant are not 6 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. Rajabu Yusuph v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2017 Ruling of 24 March 2022 (admissibility), § 27. 7 9