40. The Court notes, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Charter and the Protocol. Consequently, the Respondent State cannot invoke its sovereignty to evade compliance with the provisions of the Charter and the Protocol or, for that matter, any other human rights instrument to which it is a party. 41. The Court considers that, in any event, it has material jurisdiction to hear an application submitted to it provided that it alleges violation of a human right protected by the human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a party.11 42. In the present Application, the Court notes, as earlier stated, that the Applicant alleges violation of several human rights, namely, the right to equality before the law, the right to equal protection of the law, the right to a fair trial, and the right to liberty and security, as provided for in Articles 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Charter and Articles 7, 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, which are human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party. 43. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection that the Application infringes on its sovereignty. 44. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 45. The Court notes that no objections have been raised to its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it must ensure that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met before proceeding to consider the matter. 11 Hongue Éric Noudéhouenou v. Republic of Benin (merits) 4 AfCLR 749, § 26; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45. 14