55. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds in conclusion that all the requirements set out in Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol on personal jurisdiction are fulfilled given that the Applicant is a natural person and acted in that capacity. 56. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection to personal jurisdiction raised by the Respondent State . B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 57. The Court notes that its temporal and territorial jurisdiction are not contested by the Respondent State. Moreover, nothing in the case file indicates that its jurisdiction does not extend to these two aspects. The Court therefore notes that , in the case at issue, it has: I. temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol; ii. territorial jurisdiction , insofar as the facts of the case took place in the territory of a State Party to the Protocol , in this case, the Respondent State . 58.In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application . VI. ADMISSIBILITY On admissibility of the additional submissions 59. On 14 January 2019, the Applicant alleges that the Benin laws in force in the Respondent State listed in paragraph 26 of this Judgment are not in conformity with international conventions and violate the rights of Benin citizens. 60. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to suspend all such laws until they are amended for conformity with the international instruments to which Benin is a party. He also prays the Court to order the Respondent State to I