26. The Court notes that its material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction is not in contention between the parties. 27 'The Court also notes that, in the instant case, there is no doubt as to its material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction given that: the Applicants are raising the issue of violation of the rights guaranteed by international human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent i' Statel; ii. the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has deposited the declaration prescribed by Rule 34(6) enabling individuals and NGOs to directly bring cases before the Court by virtue of Article 5(3) of the Protocol;2 iii. iv. the alleged violations occurred subsequent to the entry into force of the international instruments, as concerns the Respondent state3; and the facts of the case took place on the territory of the Respondent State 28.|n view of the foregoing considerations, the court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the case. VI ON ADMISSIBILITY 29.According to Article 6 (2) of the Protocol: "The Court shall rule on the admissibility of a case taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the charter.,, 30. The Respondent State invokes only one inadmissibility objection based on Rule 40 (5) of the Rules of Court which stipulates that, "to be admissible, Applications shall be filed after exhausting tocal remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged,,. ' See para 2 of this judgment. ' See para 2 of this judgment. u ldem. 7 @-9'