35. Consequently, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application and dismisses the Respondent State’s objection accordingly. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 36. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,14 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding. 37. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls as indicated in paragraph 2 of the judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 38. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one year after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.15 This Application having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 39. As for territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred within the territory of the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court holds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 40. In light of all the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. 14 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 004/2015, Judgment of 26 June 2020 (merits and reparations), §§ 35-39. 15 11