before the Commission. Once the Applicant has withdrawn hrs communication before the Commission, he has the right to approach another forum and, in the view of this court, there is nothing untoward about this. The Respondent's objection is therefore not valid. However, this finding does not necessarily mean that the application is admissible because the application must still meet other requirements of admissibility; in particular, the Applicant must satisfy the provisions of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, read together with Article 56(5) of the Charter, namely, that he has exhausted local remedies. This aspect is dealt with later. The Court's Jurisdiction in terms of the Protocol 34. The jurisdiction of the Court ratione materiae is set out in Article 3 of the Protocol. Article 3( 1) of the Protocol provides that: "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." Article 3(2) provides that "in the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide". The provision is quite broad as it extends to all cases and disputes, on human rights issues, concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned . In the instant case, the requirements of the subject matter jurisdiction have been met, as the rights alleged to be violated are human rights enshrin~ harter. 17 ~ [17) \ ....