V. JURISDICTION 18. The Court notes that Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. 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. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 19. 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 20. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every Application, preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction and rule on the objections to its jurisdiction, if any. 21. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material and temporal jurisdiction. The Court will first consider the said objections before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 22. The Respondent State submits that the Court is not vested with material jurisdiction to adjudicate the Application, namely, to quash the conviction and order the release of a convict. It avers that Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules of Court4 only grant the Court jurisdiction to deal with cases or disputes concerning the application and interpretation of the 3 4 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Rule 29 of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 6