12. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court “The Court shall ascertain its jurisdiction [...] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 13. Based on the above-cited provisions, the Court must conduct a preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 14. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Respondent State does not raise any objection to its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must ensure that its jurisdiction is established on all aspects. 15. Having found that nothing on the record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court holds that it has: i. Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges violation of human rights protected by the Charter and the ICCPR, to which the Respondent State is a party.2 ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State deposited the Declaration on 23 July 2013, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment. On 29 April 2020, it deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the said Declaration. In this respect, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal has no retroactive effect, and does not have any bearing on pending or new cases filed before the withdrawal came into effect, that is, on 30 April 2021. This Application filed on 22 July 2019, that is, prior to the withdrawal of the Declaration, it therefore not affected. iii. Temporal jurisdiction, as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Protocol.3 2 The Respondent State became a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) on 26 March 1992. 3 Fory v. Côte d’Ivoire, supra, § 32; Kouassi Kouame and Baba Sylla v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 015/2021, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 24. 5