20. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 21. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 22. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will first examine this objection before considering other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 23. The Respondent State contends that this Court is “not a criminal appeal court capable of quashing conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant and set him free from prison”. According to the Respondent State, this Court does not have jurisdiction to quash the decision of its High Court. * 24. The Applicant did not reply to the Respondent State’s claims. *** 25. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it, provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged, are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.5 26. The Court emphasises that its material jurisdiction is thus predicated on the Applicant’s allegation of violations of human rights protected by the Charter 5 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 6