23. The Court thus reiterates its jurisprudence that while it is certainly not an appellate body for the decisions of the Respondent State’s domestic courts, including its Constitutional Court, it has jurisdiction to ascertain compliance with international human rights standards by the said courts. The Court, therefore, finds that if it were to examine the Applicant’s allegations in the present case, it would not be ruling as an appellate court reviewing the Constitutional Court’s decision, but within the remit of its own material jurisdiction. 24. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 25. The Court notes that the other aspects of its jurisdiction are not in dispute. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before considering the Application. 26. As regards its personal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Respondent State is a Party to the Charter and the Protocol, and has deposited the Declaration. The Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that on 25 March 2020, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration. In this respect, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on cases filed before the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal or on new cases filed before the withdrawal comes into effect. Given that the said withdrawal of the Declaration took effect one year after the deposit of the instrument thereof, in this case on 26 March 2021, it has no impact on the present Application, which was filed on 10 May 2018. In the circumstances, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 8