23. Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the Court must conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 24. In the instant Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus consider the objection (A) before examining the other aspects of its jurisdiction (B) if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 25. The Respondent State argues that the “Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the Application before it.” It submits that the Court “is not vested with the jurisdiction to sit as an appellate court and adjudicate on matters that have been decided by the highest court in a Respondent State.” 26. It is the Respondent State’s submission, therefore, that the Court is not “vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate over this matter, particularly quashing the death sentence and release the Applicant from prison.” * 27. In her Reply, the Applicant, relying on the Court’s decision in Kijiji Isiaga v. Tanzania, contends that the issues raised in the Application relate to specific violations of human rights that are protected by the Charter and that, therefore, the Court has material jurisdiction. *** 28. The Court recalls that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights 8