Accordingly, the Court rejects the objection raised by the Respondent State, ...." lt has subject-matter jurisdiction under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, which provides that the Court "shall have jurisdiction in all cases and disputes submitted to it...", § 36. 41 . This reversal of logic by the Court is not in vain. lt makes it possible to appreciate how the applicable law is not external to the determination of jurisdiction, which is well defined by the Protocol. 42.Orders for the indication of provisional measures do not present the same difficulties. lt may be observed, as in the Ajavon2s Case, that the Court's prima facie decision does not require recourse to its applicable law (7 Article). This is stated in paragraph 28: "However, before ordering interim measures, the Court need not satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but merely that it has prima facie ju risd iction". The Court does not have such jurisdiction 43.Article 3, in particular the first paragraph, sets out the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. However, this cannot be understood without the law which the Court applies, that is, Article 7, with which it should be more regularly associated in its decisions. This scope of jurisdiction is not limited...as long as the Court is within its applicable law, it is within its jurisdiction. This place of applicable law is also present when discussing the Court's jurisdiction to hear a case under Article 3(2). The links between these articles are at the root, they are ontological. :f AIL-l IPR. Séhastien (iarnoin ..\juwtn v. llepuhlic o/ !)anin. Ordcr, 7 l)cccmbcr 201 8 15