State’s withdrawal was 22 November 2020.12 This Application, having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, is thus not affected by it. The Court, therefore, finds that it has personal jurisdiction to examine the present Application. 29. In respect of its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant arose after the Respondent State became a Party to the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, the Court observes that the Applicant remains convicted based on what he considers an unfair process. Therefore, it holds that the alleged violations can be considered to be continuing in nature. 13 For these reasons, the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application. 30. As for its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant happened within the territory of the Respondent State. In these circumstances, the Court holds that it has territorial jurisdiction. 31. In light of all of the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 32. Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter”. 12 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. United Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 13 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabè des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 9