3
Respondent raised five objections on the admissibility of the Application.
In its Briefs in Response to the two Applications, the Respondent
however addressed both issues of admissibility and merits. For reasons
related to the proper administration of justice, the Court therefore decided
not to suspend the proceedings on the merits of the case but to join
consideration of the objections raised by the Respondent to that of the
merits in both Applications, as allowed under Rule 52 (3) of the Rules.
The Rejoinders of both Applicants as well as the oral pleadings of all the
Parties thus dealt with the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility
ofboth Applications as well as with the merits of the case.
4. It should be noted here that the Respondent did not fonnally raise any
objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. Although in its Brief in
Response to the second Applicant (pages 9-11, par. 19-23), it presented
its five preliminary objections as objections to the admissibility of the
Application, its 3rd, 4th and s•h objections should in fact be considered as
objections relating to the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. The Court's jurisdiction to deal with an application brought against a
State party and originating directly from an individual or a nongovernmental organisation is mainly governed by Articles 3 (1) and 5 (3)
of the Protocol. This jurisdiction must be considered both at the personal
level (ratione personae) and at the material (ratione materiae), temporal
(ratione temporis) and geographical (ratione loci) levels.