iS} 20, These two decisions are a clear indication that by 19 September 2008, there was already a complaint and therefore a dispute as to the payment of pension and severance benefits by the Respondent State. This presupposes that by that date, the Respondent State had already violated its obligation towards the Applicants as provided for in the Deed of settlement of 20 September 2005. The dispute therefore took place well before the Tanzania by the Applicants on 15 October 2010, seizure of the High Court of 21, Based on the foregoing, one can therefore safely concludes that the act which instigated the alleged violation of certain provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights occurred prior to the entry into force of the optional declaration with regard to the Respondent State and that, consequently, the Court has no jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine this allegation. ce 22. Thus, the Court ought to have declared that it lacked jurisdiction with regard to the alleged violations of the rights of the Applicants relating to the nonpayment of the totality of their pension and severance benefits; it should have continued with the consideration of the admissibility of the application but only with respect to the alleged violation of the rights of the Applicants resulting from the police brutalities which are said to have taken place on 23 May 2011, and to declare it not admissible, as it did, due to the failure to exhaust local remedies. Fatsah Ouguergouz Judge Robert Eno, Registrar