any matter to the Court, including matters which reveal a series of serious or massive violations of human rights.3 The Respondent's preliminary objection that the Commission did not comply with Article 58 of the Charter is thus not relevant as far as the material jurisdiction of the Court is concerned . 54. Regarding the preliminary examination of its jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 40 of the Rules and Article 50 of the Charter, the Court notes that these two provisions do not deal with the jurisdiction of the Court but concern issues of admissibility, in particular, the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, which the Court will address at a later stage in this judgment. In any event and in keeping with its Rules, the final decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction can only be taken after receiving and analysing submissions from the parties. The Respondent's objection in this regard is therefore dismissed . 55. From the foregoing, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the Application. B. Personal Jurisdiction Respondent's Objection 56. The Respondent contends that the original complainants before the Commission lacked standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission as they did not have authority to represent the Ogieks, nor were they acting on their behalf. Applicant's Submission 57 . The Applicant , c iting its own jurisprudence , submits that it has adopted the actio popularis doctrine which allows anyone to file a complaint before it on behalf of victims without necessarily getting the consent of the victims . For this reason , the Commission was seised with the Communication in November 2009 by two of the complainants : CEMIRIDE and OPDP, which are Non - Governmental Organizations 3 See also Rule 118 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. 16 ~ >I ~I /