22. Furthermore, under Rule 49(1) of the Rules, “The Court shall ascertain its jurisdiction and the admissibility of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 23. In view of the foregoing, the Court must examine all aspects of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 24. In the present case, the Respondent State raises objections to the Court’s material jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will rule on these objections before deciding on other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objections to material jurisdiction 25. The Respondent State raises a two-pronged objection to the Court’s material jurisdiction: first, based on the fact that the subject-matter of the Application does not relate to a violation of a human right and; second, based on the fact that the subject-matter of the Application infringes on its national sovereignty. i. Objection alleging that the Application does not relate to a human rights violation 26. The Respondent State considers that, under the Charter, the Applicant’s allegations, as a whole, relate to four rights, namely, the right to liberty, the right to equality, the right to have recourse to the courts and the right to dignity. It submits that the concept of human rights violation means depriving individuals of their fundamental rights and, sometimes, treating them as if they were less than human and undeserving of life and dignity, as in the cases of genocide, torture, forced starvation and slavery. It further argues that the concept of human rights violation also refers to the deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights resulting from the failure of the state to meet its obligations to guarantee the enjoyment of these rights without discrimination. 10