27. As regards temporal jurisdiction, the Court holds that the relevant dates, in relation to the Respondent State, are 22 August 2014 when the Protocol took effect, and 8 February 2016 when the Declaration was deposited. 28. The Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant relate to the law adopted on 24 August 2004, that is, before the Respondent State became a party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration. 29. However, the Court notes that the Law of 24 August 2004 was still in force when the Application was filed. It, therefore, observes that the violations continued after the Respondent State became a Party to the Protocol and deposited its Declaration8. The Court, therefore, holds that it has temporal jurisdiction. 30. Finally, as regards territorial jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction as the facts of the case and the alleged violations took place in the Respondent State’s territory. 31. Consequently, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to consider the instant Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 32. Under Article 6(2) of the Protocol “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter”. 8 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, §§ 51-53; Bob Chacha Wengue and others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 011/2020, judgment of 13 June 2023, § 35. 9