00050? ii. 27. That the Application is inadmissible and be duly dismissed." The Respondent State also prays that the Court declare that it has not violated Articles 2,3(1) and (2) and 7(1Xa) of the Charter, the Application lacks merit and it should be dismissed with costs. V. JURISDICTION 28. The Respondent State has not raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. ln terms of Rule 39 (1) of its Rules, "the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction." 29. With regard to its materialjurisdiction, the Applicant has sought reliefs based on allegations relating to the violation of his rights under Articles 13(1), 13(3), 13(6)(a), 26(1) and 26(2) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. 30. ln accordance with Article 3(1 ) of the Protocol and Rule 26(1 )(a) of the Rules, the Court's material jurisdiction relates only to the application and interpretation of human rights instruments to which a State is a Party, rather than to the application and interpretation of the Respondent State's Constitution. 31. The Court notes however, that the rights provided for under the afore-mentioned provisions of the Respondent State's Constitution correspond to the rights set out in Articles 2, 3(1) and (2) and 7(1)(a) of the Charter on the right to nondiscrimination, the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law and the right to appealto competent national organs against acts violating rights. 32. With regard to the other aspects of its jurisdiction, the Court holds that: It has personal jurisdiction over the Parties because the Respondent State deposited the Declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) of the Protocol 8 ry q A-*