bbosze 30.The Respondent State further argues that the Applicants have not produced any evidence to support the allegation that it declared their passports invalid or they suffered the alleged prejudice. 31.1n their Reply, the Applicants attached a list, which they state contains the names of the people whose passports have been declared invalid. 32.The Court notes that the objection regarding the Application not establishing a pima facie case for lack of evidence to support the Applicants' claims and to establish the prejudice they suffered are properly issues of material jurisdiction. 33.The Court also notes that the Applicants allege violations of their rights guaranteed underArticles 6, 12, 13 and 18 of the Charter, and in accordancewith Article 3 of the Protocol, the Court has materialjurisdiction to deal with the matter. 34. Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection and finds that it has materialjurisdiction over the Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 35. The Court notes that the other aspects of the jurisdiction of the court having not been contested and nothing on record indicates that the court does not have jurisdiction: it has temporal jurisdiction on the basis that the alleged violations are continuous in nature2 2 See Application No. 003/2015. Judgment ot 281O912017 (Merits) Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Others v United Republic of Tanzania, $ 47(i) and lngabire Victote v. Rwanda (Ruling on Withdrawat) g 67. 8 ,-e 1-----