19. According to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 20. Based on the above provisions, the Court must conduct an examination of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 21. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will, therefore, consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 22. The Respondent State argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present Application insofar as it does not clearly indicate the alleged violation of human rights and merely cites the articles of the Charter allegedly violated. 23. The Respondent State further submits that the presentation of the Application does not allow the State of Mali nor this Court to identify with precision the human right or rights violated, contrary to Rule 40(2) of the Rules. 24. The Respondent State also argues that this Court is not a labour court empowered to censure the decisions of national courts but rather it is a court responsible for finding and redressing cases of human rights violation. 25. The Respondent State submits in conclusion that this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. 26. The Applicants, for their part, submit that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this Application, insofar as they have complied with Rule 40 of the Rules and Article 56 of the Charter. 6