17. 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.”3 18. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 19. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will first consider the said objection (A) before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction (B) if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 20. The Respondent State avers that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to determine matters of facts and law such as that of the defence of insanity of the Applicant in the present case. According to the Respondent State, this issue was determined with finality by the Court of Appeal. 21. It is also the contention of the Respondent State that this Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the present Application as it cannot quash the conviction, set aside the sentence or order the Applicant’s release. 22. The Applicant rebuts the Respondent State’s objection and asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to consider this Application so long as it alleges a violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter and ICCPR.4 *** 23. The issue arising in respect of jurisdiction in the present Application is whether this Court has jurisdiction to examine the case and grant the Applicant’s prayers. 3 4 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Ratified by the Respondent State on 11 June 1976. 6