V. JURISDICTION 14. The Court observes 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. 15. 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 16. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every application, conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 17. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State has raised an objection to its material jurisdiction and to its temporal jurisdiction. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 18. The Respondent State contends that the jurisdiction of this Court is provided for under Article 3 of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules. 19. It contests the material jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the Applicant’s prayers and contends that, this Court is not afforded unlimited jurisdiction to quash the lawful conviction and sentence of the Applicant and to order his release. Doing so would in effect mean overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest court of the land, which sustained such 3 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6