14. Under Rule 49 (1) of the Rules “The Court shall ascertain its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and […] Rules.3 15. Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the Court must, in each Application, ascertain its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 16. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection based on material jurisdiction, on which it will first rule (A) before considering other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary (B). A. Objection based on material jurisdiction 17. The Respondent State asserts that the Court’s material jurisdiction emanates from Article 3(1) of the Protocol, according to which it has jurisdiction to hear “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”. It concedes that the Applicant is, therefore, entitled to bring a dispute concerning these instruments before the Court. 18. It contends, however, that the Applicant seized this Court as an appellate court, challenging the Amnesty Law and the Dismissal Order, with a view to obtaining a judicial decision compelling the government to set up a commission of inquiry. 19. The Respondent State points out, in this regard, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to establish facts contrary to the order of an investigating judge. Referencing Ernest Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, the Respondent State contends that the Court is not a court of appeal vis-a-vis domestic courts. 20. It further contends that, pursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules4 and Article 3 of the Protocol, the Court lacks jurisdiction to repeal a domestic law. 3 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of the Court of 2 June 2010. 4 Rule 29 of the Rules of Court of 1 September 2020. 7