17. Pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules,3 “the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and the Rules”. 18. Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the Court must, in each Application, conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 19. The Respondent State does not raise any objections to its jurisdiction. 20. Having found that nothing on the record shows that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has: i) Material jurisdiction insofar as the Applicants alleges violation of human rights protected by the Charter, to which the Respondent State is a party. ii) Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State has deposited the Declaration which entitles individuals and non-governmental organisations with Observer Status before the Commission to initiate cases directly with the Court. iii) Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations were committed after the entry into force of the Protocol in relation to the Respondent State. iv) Territorial jurisdiction, insofar as the facts of the case and the alleged violations took place in the territory of the Respondent State. 3 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of the Court of 2 June 2010. 6