-000305 courts' evaluation of evidence is compatible or otherwise with international human rights standards. This would neither make the Court an appellate court nor is it tantamount to exercising an appellate jurisdiction. The Respondent State's objections in this regard lack merit and are thus dismissed. 28.|n light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction over the instant Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 29. The Court notes that the personal, temporal and territorial aspects of its jurisdiction are not disputed by the Respondent State and that nothing on the record indicates that the Court lacks personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. The Court accordingly holds that: (i) It has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has made the declaration prescribed under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, which enabled the Applicant to bring this Application directly before this Court, pursuant to Article 5 (3) of the Protocol; (ii) It has temporal jurisdiction because the alleged violations occurred subsequent to the Respondent State's ratification of the Protocol establishing the Court; (iii) lt has territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the case occurred in the Respondent State's territory. 30.1n light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case $ e 8 .+ k2 @