30. In the alternative, the Respondent State prays the Court to: V. 1. Dismiss the Application for being unfounded 2. Order the Applicants to bear the costs JURISDICTION 31. The Court notes 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. 32. The Court recalls that, under rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”4 33. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 34. In the instant Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise any objections to its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application. 35. With regard to its material jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Applicants allege violations of Articles 7(1) of the Charter, Article 8 of the UDHR and Article 11 of the ILO Convention on Freedom of Association C87 of 1948. The Court recalls that the Respondent State is a party to the Charter and that 4 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2 June 2010. 8