00 0 80? 27.This Court exercises jurisdiction as long as "the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State."aln the instant Application, by exercising this mandate, the Court is not acting as an appellate Court. 28. The Court therefore dismisses the objections raised by the Respondent State in this regard, and finds that it has materialjurisdiction over the Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 29.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorialjurisdiction have not been contested by the Respondent State, and that nothing on the record indicates that it lacks such jurisdiction. The Court therefore 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) thereof, which enabled the Applicant to file this Application pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Protocol. (ii) it has temporaljurisdiction in view of the fact that the alleged violations are continuous in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers as irregularitiess; and (iii) it has territorialjurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent State. 30. ln light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the case U. ADMISSIBILITY 31. ln terms of 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." Abubakai v. United Republic of Tanzania, (hereinafter referred to as "Mohamed Abubakai v Tanzania (Merits)"), $ 29. a Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), 45. $ 5 See Application No. 013/201 1 . Ruling of 21106/2013, (Preliminary Objection s), Norbeft Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, $$ 71 lo 77 /a ,., 8 &