20.1n the instant case, the Applicant alleges violations of his rights protected by the Charter. This Court, accordingly, has jurisdiction to determine whether the domestic courts' proceedings that form the basis of his Application before this Court had been conducted in accordance with international standards set out in the Charter. 21.|n view of the forgoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection that the Court is acting as an appellate court and finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the matter. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 22.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction has not been contested by the Respondent State; and nothing in the pleadings indicates that the Court does not have jurisdiction. The Court thus holds that: i. it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has deposited the required declaration under Article 34(6) thereof, which enables the Applicant to directly access the Court in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol; ii. it has temporaljurisdiction on the basis that the alleged violations are continuous in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers an unfair process; iii. it has territorialjurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred in the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent State. 23. From the foregoing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. VI. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 24. ln terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, "The Court shallrule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charte/'. 6 T q "4<yq