B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 31. The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction is not challenged by the Respondent State. However, being pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules,5 the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met before proceeding to determine the Application on merits. 32. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and had deposited the Declaration. The Court further recalls that on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes place twelve (12) months after notice of such withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020.6 33. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the Declaration has no bearing on matters pending prior to the filing of the withdrawal. This Application, having been filed before the date of the withdrawal, is thus unaffected by the withdrawal. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 34. Regarding temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the present Application is based on the trial of the Applicant which was concluded at the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeal which pronounced its judgment on 3 September 2015. The Court observes that the Court of Appeal’s judgment was delivered after the Respondent State had ratified the Protocol.7 The Court, therefore, holds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear this Application. 5 Rule 49(1) Rules of Court, 1 September 2020. Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 35-39. 7 Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme (LIDHO) and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 041/2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 58. 6 8