A. Material jurisdiction Respondent's Objection 48 . The Respondent contends that rather than filing the Application before the Court, the Commission ought to have drawn the attention of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU) once it was convinced that the communication before it relates to a special case which reveals the existence of "a series of serious or massive violations of human and peoples' rights" as provided under Article 58 of the Charter. 49. The Respondent further submits that the Court failed to conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction by virtue of Rule 39 of its Rules in accordance with Article 50 of the Charter, and that it has not complied with the above cited provision of the Charter. Applicant's Submission 50. The Applicant submits that bringing to the attention of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU, a special case which reveals the existence of a series of serious or massive violations of human rights , is not a prerequisite for referring a matter to the Court and is only one avenue provided under Article 58 of the Charter. In this regard, the Applicant argues that with the establishment of the Court, it now has the additional option of referring matters to the Court, as the Court comp lements the Commission's protective mandate pursuant to Article 2 of the Protocol. On the contention by the Respondent that the Court ought to have conducted a preliminary examination of its jurisdicti on in respect of the Application in line with Article 50 of the Charter, the Applicant notes that the rule relating to the preliminary examination of the jurisdiction of the Court is Rule 39, not Rule 40 of th e Rules , as cited by the Respondent.