17. It argues that the jurisdiction requirements under Article 3(1) of the Protocol make no room for calling into question domestic laws or judicial decisions, so that this Court cannot deliver a judgment calling into question an administrative decision of a State. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant’s requests fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court. 18. It concludes that the Court should decline jurisdiction. 19. The Applicant, without directly replying to the Respondent State’s submission, affirms that Benin has ratified the Charter, the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. He considers that the Court has jurisdiction. *** 20. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it 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 concerned”. 21. The Court recalls that for it to assume material jurisdiction, it is sufficient that the Applicant alleges violations of human rights protected under the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.7 22. The Court notes that in the present case, the Applicant alleges a violation of the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to nationality, which are protected by Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter and Article 15 of the UDHR respectively. Therefore, the Court acts within the purview of its jurisdiction. 7 Franck David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 358, § 74; Peter Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, § 118. 6