allegations of human rights violations. The Court will rule on this objection before examining the other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to the Court’s material jurisdiction 26. The Respondent State contends that, in accordance with Articles 3 and 26 of the Protocol, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited primarily to taking measures to put an end to and prevent violations committed against African citizens, and to deter governments and their systems, thereby safeguarding the rights of African citizens enshrined in international covenants, foremost among which are the Charter and its Protocol establishing the Court. 27. The Respondent State avers that, in accordance with the Charter, the rights involved may be grouped into four limbs, namely the right to liberty, the right to equality, the right to justice and the right to dignity. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the concept of human rights violation should be understood as depriving individuals of their fundamental rights and, possibly, treating them as if they were less than human and undeserving of life and dignity, including genocide, torture, starvation and slavery. The concept also refers, according to the Respondent State, to the violation of economic, social and cultural rights when the State does not respect its obligations to ensure the enjoyment of these rights without discrimination, such as failing to guarantee the right to work in order to ensure a decent life. 28. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant’s complaints against one Al-Fadil bin Al-Amin Al-Obeidi cannot be regarded as a violation of human rights for which it is responsible. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant does not prove a violation of his rights. * 8