v. The conviction of the Applicant was based on credible and watertight evidence; vi. The Prosecution in original Criminal Cases No. 155 of 2005 and the Criminal Appeals No. 138 of 2008 and 125 of 2011 were conducted in accordance with the governing laws; vii. The Application be dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit; viii. No reparation be awarded in favour of the Applicant; ix. The Applicant’s prayers be dismissed; and x. V. The costs of this Application be borne by the Applicant. JURISDICTION 21. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Protocol: 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 instruments ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 22. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction… in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 23. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must ascertain its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 24. The Respondent State raises an objection to the Court’s material jurisdiction with respect to both the first and second Applications. The Court will consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. 7