has been deposited. In this case, the effective date was 22 November 2020.4 In view of the above, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction as the withdrawal does not affect the present Application, which was filed on 25 July 2016. 32. As regards its material jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 2, 3, 7(1), 9(1), 14 and 16 of the Charter, to which the Respondent State is a party. Therefore, the Court’s material jurisdiction is established. 33. The Court notes that its temporal jurisdiction is determined from the date of entry into force of the Protocol.5 The Court observes that the alleged violations occurred between 2002 and 2017. Furthermore, the Court notes that, the alleged violations, which started before 2006 when the Respondent State ratified the Protocol, continued after the ratification of the Protocol by the Respondent State. Consequently, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction is established. 34. The Court further finds that it has territorial jurisdiction as the facts of the case occurred on the territory of the Respondent State, which is a party to the Charter and the Protocol. 35. From the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. VII. ADMISSIBILITY 36. Article 6(2) of the Protocol provides that, “the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter.” 4 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 37-39. 5 Ligue Ivorienne des Droits de l’Homme and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 041/2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 58. 9