2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 20. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction … in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 21. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must ascertain its jurisdiction and dispose of objections to its jurisdiction, if any. 22. The Respondent State raises objections to the material jurisdiction of the Court. The Court will consider the said objection before examining other aspects of jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objections to material jurisdiction 23. The Respondent State raises an objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court based, first, on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to reverse the decisions of its Court of Appeal and, secondly, that the Court is being called upon to sit as a court of first instance. 24. The Respondent State avers that the jurisdiction of the Court emanates from Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. According to the Respondent State, these provisions provide that “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.” 25. The Respondent State contends in the first place that, the Court has no jurisdiction to assess the evidence adduced in the course of the Applicant’s trial and appeal since the Applicant is requesting the Court to quash and set aside his conviction and sentence. The Respondent State argues that the Court has no jurisdiction to do so, since both the conviction and sentence were upheld by the Court of Appeal, which is its highest court. It is the 7