v. Any other Order or Remedy that this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant. 12. On jurisdiction and admissibility, the Respondent State prays the Court to find: i. That, the Honourable African Court on Human and Peoples Rights is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Application; ii. That, the Application has not met the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court and it is therefore inadmissible and be duly dismissed; iii. That, the Application has not met the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40(6) of the Rules of Court and it is therefore inadmissible and be duly dismissed; and iv. That, the Application is inadmissible and be duly dismissed with costs. 13. On the merits, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that it did not violate the Applicants’ rights under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Charter. It also prays that the Applicants should not be awarded reparations and that their prayers should be “dismissed in their entirety”. 14. It is also the Respondent State’s prayer that the “Application be dismissed for lack of merit” and that “costs be borne by the Applicants.” V. JURISDICTION 15. 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. 5