VI. JURISDICTION 20. The Court observes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. 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. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 21. Pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”7 22. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 23. The Court notes that, even though nothing on the record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, it is obligated to determine if it has jurisdiction to consider the Application. 24. Regarding its material jurisdiction, the Court has previously held that Article 3(1) of the Protocol empowers it to examine an Application provided that it contains allegations of violations of rights protected by the Charter, or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.8 Given that the present Application contains allegations of violations of the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter, the Court concludes that it has material jurisdiction to examine this Application. 7 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, § 24. 8 6