A. Objection to the materialjurisdiction of the Court 20. The Respondent State contends that the subject of the Application does not relate to any of the five areas of the Court's jurisdiction set out in Rule 26(1) of the Rules. 21. The Respondent State maintains that it is evident that the areas in question enumerated in Rule 26(1)(a) 1 do not correspond to the subject of the Application which invokes cases of violations of human rights conventions. For the Respondent state, the Application does not pose a problem of interpretation of the Charter or other international human rights instruments. 22. The Respondent State further contends that the said instruments have no application difficulties in the legal and judiciary system of Jr/ali, proof thereof being the fact that Article 116 of the tt/alian Constitution provides that treaties duly ratified or approved by the State have, upon publication, superior authority over that of laws; that the Family Code cannot therefore pose an obstacle to the interpretation and application of the provisions of duly ratified international conventions. 23. The Respondent State also argues that, in the instant case, only simple technical issues of harmonisation of the Family Code with the said international instruments may be taken into account to make the application of national laws more consistent. 24. The Respondent State maintains, lastly, that the Application is more concerned with issues of sensitisation and popularisation rather than those of interpretation and application of the Charter and other international instruments ratified by Mali, and consequently prays the Court to declare that it does not have jurisdiction. urt shall have jurisdiction to deal with all cases and all disputes submitted to it concerntng on and application of the Charter, the Protocol and any other relevant hu man rights ment ratified by the States concerned." 4 _-Y7/( r r' u Itc-