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. 18. In accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction … in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 19. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must preliminarily establish its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 20. In the present Application, the Court observes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus first consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 21. The Respondent State raises an to the Court’s material jurisdiction contending that the Applicant is asking it to sit as an appellate court and adjudicate matters of evidence which have already been decided by its Court of Appeal. In support of this argument, the Respondent State cites the Court’s judgment in Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi. Further, the Respondent State argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to order the Applicant’s release under Article 27(1) of the Protocol since the Applicant’s prayers are not within the remit of the Court’s mandate. 22. The Applicant did not submit on this point. * 23. The Court recalls, as it has consistently held, that in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to consider any Application filed before 6