Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY instruments ratified by the State concerned. In conducting the aforementioned task, the Court held, it does not thereby become an appellate court. Concerning the Respondent State’s objection that the Applicant did not demonstrate any link between the faulted proceedings of its domestic courts and the alleged human rights violation. the Court held that this is an issue to be dealt with on the merits and not in relation to the determination of its jurisdiction. As to the Respondent State’s objection that the Court lacked jurisdiction to quash the entire proceedings before the trial and appellate courts, the Court recalled Article 27(1) of the Protocol, and concluded that it has jurisdiction to grant different types of reparations, including an order to declare proceedings in the national courts null and void, an order to annul a conviction and sentence, and to order the release of an Applicant from prison, provided that the alleged violation has been established. The Court further noted that given that the alleged violations presented before it pertained to rights enshrined in the Charter, to which the Respondent State is a Party, it possessed the necessary material jurisdiction to examine the Application. For these reasons, the Court dismissed the objection raised by the Respondent State to its material jurisdiction. Although other aspects of its jurisdiction were not challenged by the Respondent State, the Court nevertheless examined them. In this regard, the Court found that it had personal jurisdiction since, on 29 March 2010, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration provided for under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, which allows individuals to file applications against the Respondent State as per Article 5(3) of the Protocol. The Court underscored that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of the said Declaration, on 21 November 2019, did not affect this Application as the withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020, which was after this Application had been filed, on 17 December 2019. The Court also held that it had temporal jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol. Lastly, it found that it had territorial 2