27. The required conditions having thus been fulfilled, the Court renders this judgment in default.3 VI. JURISDICTION 28. Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 29. In accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ... in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 30. The Court notes that there is no objection to its jurisdiction and nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is obligated to determine if it has jurisdiction to consider the Application. 31. With regard to its personal jurisdiction, the Court notes, as earlier stated in this judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol, and that, on 29 March 2010, it deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol with the African Union Commission. However, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. In line with the Court’s jurisprudence, the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively. It only takes effect one year after the notice of such withdrawal 3 Bernard Ambataayela Mornah v. Republic of Benin and 7 Others (Burkina-Faso, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Republic of Ghana, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malawi, United Republic of Tanzania and Republic of Tunisia), ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2018, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 45-50; Léon Mugesera v. Republic of Rwanda (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 834, §§ 13-18; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 153, §§ 38-42. 8