0a0012 20. The Applicant did not make a detailed request for reparation 21. The Respondent State refused to participate in the proceedings and did not make any prayers. V. JURISDICTION 22. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, "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." Furthermore, in accordance with rule 39(1) of its Rules, "the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction..." 23. Having conducted a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction, and noting that nothing on file indicates that it does not have jurisdiction, the Court therefore holds that: it has personaljurisdiction as the Respondent State is party to the Protocol and deposited the declaration prescribed in Article 34(6) of the Protocol which enabled the Applicant to seize the Court in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol. Moreover, the Application was filed within one (1) year from the time set by the Court to give effect to the withdrawal of the declaration by the Respondent State; it has material jurisdiction in as much as the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 1 and 14 of the Charter, Article 2(3)(c) of the lnternational Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, Article 6(1) of the lnternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Article 17(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rig hts. All these instruments have been ratified 6 b y the