31. It follows that the Respondent State’s argument that the violations alleged in the Application do not pertain to human rights is unfounded. 32. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the objection to material jurisdiction on the grounds that the Application does not relate to a human rights violation. ii. Objection alleging that the Application infringes on national sovereignty 33. The Respondent State submits that international relations are based on the principle of sovereignty, which confers on the State full and supreme authority over its territory, its institutions, its political, legal and economic choices, as well as over the handling of its foreign relations, and that, in all of these respects, it is not subject to any higher authority. 34. The Respondent State considers that State sovereignty is embodied in the sovereignty of the government to exercise three powers, namely, the legislative power, the executive power and the judicial power. It further submits that the legislative and judicial branches embody an aspect of State sovereignty and are considered an essential component of its internal authority, as enshrined in Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations. 35. The Respondent State argues that under its Constitution, courts are independent in their decisions and are subject to no authority other than the law. It is the Respondent State’s submission that the courts are thus independent even from the other branches of the State under whose banner they operate, in order to operationalize the principle of their independence from the government embodied in the legislative and executive powers, and to guarantee rights, freedoms and justice within the State. 36. The Respondent State concludes that this Court cannot render a decision that infringes the sovereignty of a State Party to the Protocol on a matter that falls within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned. The only exception, according to the Respondent State, is where a State commits 12