25. The Court further notes that the Respondent State’s objection concerns the claim that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant an order for release. In this regard, the Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol which provides that “[if the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to grant different types of reparations, including release from prison, provided that the alleged violation has been established.10 26. For these reasons, the Court dismisses the objection raised by the Respondent State and holds that it has material jurisdiction in this Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 27. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding. 28. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in paragraph 2 of this judgment that, on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission an instrument withdrawing its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court further recalls that it has held that the withdrawal of a Declaration does not have any retroactive effect and it also has no bearing on matters pending prior to the filing of the instrument withdrawing the Declaration, or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect.11 Since any such withdrawal of the Declaration takes effect 12 months after the notice of withdrawal is deposited, the effective date for the Respondent 10 Rajabu Yusuph v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2017, Ruling of 24 March 2022 (admissibility), § 27. 11 Cheusi v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 219, §§ 35-39. 8