25. ln their Reply, the Applicants contend that the jurisdiction of the Court is defined by Article 3(1) of the Protocol which provides 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; that in promulgating the Family Code, some provisions of which are inconsistent with the ratified treaties, the Respondent State violates the said treaties; that, in other words, the Court is prayed to elucidate the imptications for domestic laws, of the ratification of treaties by a State; that the Court is further prayed to make a determination on the application of the said treaties in Mali. 26. The Applicants maintain, in conclusion, that, by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to interpret and apply the treaties ratified; and therefore pray the Court to dismiss the objection to its materialjurisdiction raised by the Respondent State. *** 27. The Court notes that its material jurisdiction is based on Article 3(1) of the Protocol and that, in the instant case, the alleged violation of rights relates to the human rights guaranteed by the Charter and other instruments ratified by the Republic of Mali. 28. B Consequently, the Court holds that its materialjurisdiction is established, and dismisses the objection in this respect. Other aspects of jurisdiction 29. The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction is not contested by the Respondent State, and that nothing on file indicates that it does not have jurisdiction. Consequenfly, it holds that: it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent state is a Party to the Protocol and has fired the Declaration prescribed under Article 34 (6) of the Protocor; and that the Applicants have Observer Status before the Commission; 4 8 4re /)r Atc Zt-"'