18. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every application, preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction and rule on the objections thereto, if any. 19. In the present application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 20. The Respondent State contends that the Court lacks material jurisdiction to adjudicate the application given that Article 3 of the Protocol does not provide it with the mandate to sit as a court of first instance or an appellate court and adjudicate points of law and evidence already determined by the highest domestic court. 21. In support of this contention, the Respondent State refers to the decision in Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi where this Court held that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to receive and consider appeals in respect of cases already decided upon by domestic and/or regional courts. 22. The Applicant rebuts the Respondent State’s objection and contends that the Court has jurisdiction in all cases submitted before it under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter, and Article 27 of the Protocol. *** 23. The Court recalls that pursuant to 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.4 4 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18 and Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (2014) 1 AfCLR 398, § 114. 6