Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY instruments ratified by the State concerned. In conducting the aforementioned task, the Court held, it does not thereby become an appellate court. As to the Respondent State’s objection that the Court lacked jurisdiction to quash the decisions of its domestic courts, the Court recalled Article 27(1) of the Protocol to the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Protocol), and concluded that it has jurisdiction to grant different types of reparations, including an order to declare proceedings in the national courts null and void, an order to annul a conviction and sentence, and to order the release of an Applicant from prison, provided that the alleged violation has been established. The Court further noted that given that the alleged violations presented before it pertained to rights enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter), to which the Respondent State is a Party, it possessed the necessary material jurisdiction to examine the Application. For these reasons, the Court dismissed the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction. Although other aspects of its jurisdiction were not challenged by the Respondent State, the Court nevertheless examined them. In this regard, the Court found that it had personal jurisdiction since, on 29 March 2010, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration provided for under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, which allows individuals to file applications against the Respondent State as per Article 5(3) of the Protocol. The Court underscored that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of the said Declaration, on 21 November 2019, did not affect this Application as the withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020 and that this Application was filed on 15 November 2019, that is, before the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its Declaration. The Court also held that it had temporal jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol. Lastly, it found that it had territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of the Respondent State, which is a party to the Charter and Protocol. 2