26. Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the Court, in respect of each application, must conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 27. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises objections to its material and temporal jurisdiction. The Court will thus consider the said objections before assessing other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objections to material jurisdiction 28. The Respondent State raises three objections to the Court’s material jurisdiction, first, that this Court is not an appellate court; second, that the Algiers Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as “the Algiers Convention) is not a human rights instrument; and third, that the Applicants have failed to specify the articles of the Algiers Convention based on which they allege that the Respondent State has violated its obligations. The Court will examine each of the objections raised by the Respondent State. i. Objection on the ground that the Algiers Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is not a human rights instrument 29. The Respondent State contends that the Algiers Convention is not a human rights instrument. To this end, it points out that the concept of human rights refers exclusively to subjective rights, inasmuch as they are privileges that apply only to individuals. According to the Respondent State, the provisions of the Algiers Convention apply only to States, and therefore, do not fall within the Court’s material jurisdiction. * 30. In response, the Applicants submit that the Algiers Convention places an obligation on States Parties to protect natural resources, which are closely related to the interests of individuals, as the Convention defines purpose in 11