B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 32. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not dispute its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. 33. Having noted that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court holds that it has: i. Personal jurisdiction insofar as the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. The Court recalls, as it did in paragraph 2 of this judgment, that on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. In this regard, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no bearing on cases pending before it took effect. Given that withdrawal takes effect twelve (12) months after the deposition of the instrument of withdrawal, in this case on 22 November 2020,6 it has no bearing on the instant Application. ii. Temporal jurisdiction insofar as the violations alleged occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, the alleged violations are continuous in nature insofar as the Applicant is currently serving her sentence which, she contends, violates her rights under the Charter.7 iii. Territorial jurisdiction insofar as the violations alleged occurred within the Respondent State’s territory. 34. Accordingly, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to examine this Application. 6 Ambrose Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 35-39. Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (jurisdiction) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 7 10