27. The Court underscores, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity, that it cannot consider allegations of human rights violations that occurred before the Respondent State’s obligations were triggered unless the violations are continuing in nature.5 28. The Court notes that, in the present case, the alleged violations are based on the alleged denial of the right to a fair trial in the national courts, which occurred between 2000 and 2005. In this regard, the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter but prior to the ratification of the Protocol. However, the alleged violations continued thereafter since the Applicant is still serving a sentence based on a conviction from procedures in the national courts that he considers to be unfair.6 29. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection to its temporal jurisdiction and holds that it has temporal jurisdiction. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 30. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding its personal, or territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it must satisfy itself that these aspects have been met. 31. The Court notes, with respect to its personal jurisdiction that, as earlier stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and on 29 March 2010, it deposited with the African Union Commission, the Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 5 Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 18. 6 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, § 24; Dismas Bunyerere v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 702, § 28(ii); Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (25 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 8