001094 25. The Court further observes that in terms of Rule 39(1) of the Rules: “The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...”. 26. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, preliminarily conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections, if any, to its jurisdiction. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 27.The objections to the material jurisdiction of the Court raised by the Respondent State relates to two essential aspects, namely: the form and content of the Application, and the power of the Court to consider matters of evidence which had been finalized by domestic courts. i. Objection based on the form and content of the Application 28. The Respondent State contends that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Application for the reason that the document originally filed by the Applicant is not an application within the meaning of the Protocol. 29. The Court is of the opinion that the question of the form of the letter and its content relate to the issue of admissibility and hence, will address it later in the section on admissibility of the Application. ii. Objection based on the power of the Court to evaluate the evidence 30. The Respondent State contends that the Application seeks to extend the jurisdiction of this Court beyond its mandate as set out under Article 3 of the Protocol and Rule 26 of its Rules, and require it to sit as a supreme appellate court. In this regard, the Respondent State submits that the Application requires the Court to adjudicate on matters of evidence, already resolved and finalized by its highest court, that is, the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State therefore maintains that this Court has no 8