Charter, the (…) Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 12. Under Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court, the Court “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of an Application in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 13. On the basis of the aforementioned provisions, the Court must conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and rule on any objections thereto, if any. 14. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Respondent State does not raise any objection as to its jurisdiction. However, it must, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court, satisfy itself that the conditions relating to all aspects of its jurisdiction are met. 15. Having found that there is nothing, on the record, to indicate that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court considers that it has: i. material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges violation of human rights protected by the Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter ‘the ICCPR’) to which the Respondent State is a party.2 ii. personal jurisdiction, given that, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration on 23 July 2013. On 29 April 2020 it deposited the instrument of withdrawal of that Declaration. In this regard, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on cases pending at the time of filing the instrument of withdrawal or on new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect, in 2 The Respondent State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘the ICCPR’), 26 March 1992. 5