2. In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 13. Furthermore, Rule 49(1) of the Rules provides that “the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and the […] Rules”.2 14. Based on the above-mentioned provisions, the Court must, in each case, conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 15. The Court observes that no objection has been raised to its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must ascertain that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled. 16. Having found nothing on record to indicate that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has: i. Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges human rights violation protected by the Charter and the ICCPR, 3 human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a party; ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. The Court recalls, as stated in paragraph 2 of the present Judgment, that on 25 March 2020, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration. In this regard, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence according to which the withdrawal of the Declaration by the Respondent State has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on new or pending cases brought before it prior to the entry into force thereof, that is, twelve (12) months after the deposit of the instrument relating thereto, in this case on 26 March 2021. The present Application, which was filed before the Respondent State withdrew its Declaration, is therefore not 2Article 3The 39(1) of the Rules of Court of 2 June 2010. Respondent State became a party to the ICCPR on 23 March 1976. 6