A. Objections to material jurisdiction 25. The Respondent State argues that the Court’s jurisdiction emanates from Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, which state that “The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol, and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned.” It asserts that while the Protocol and Rules of the Court grant the Court jurisdiction, it is not an unlimited jurisdiction. The Court can only be approached for matters that have already been decided upon by domestic courts and cannot be seized for any other reason. 26. The Respondent State asserts that, in the instant Applications, however, the Applicants request the Court to sit as a court of first instance on matters that were not raised at the domestic level and as an appellate court on issues which have been determined with finality by its highest Court. In this regard, the Respondent State contends that the Second Applicant’s allegations that he was not afforded legal assistance during trial and that his right to defence was violated were never raised by the Applicant and heard by its national courts. Accordingly, it submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Applications. 27. The Applicants dispute the Respondent State’s submissions and assert that the Court has jurisdiction to consider and determine their Applications pursuant to Article 3 of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules. The First Applicant specifically argues that the Court exercises its jurisdiction over an application as long as the complaints relate to the principles of human and peoples’ rights and freedoms contained in the Charter. *** 28. The Court recalls that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights 8