26. In the present case, notwithstanding that the Respondent State has defaulted, the Court, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, must ensure that its jurisdiction in these areas is established. 27. Having found that nothing on the record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court holds that it has: i. Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges violations of human rights protected by the Charter and the ICCPR.3 ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State deposited the Declaration on 23 July 2013, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Subsequently, on 29 April 2020, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. In this respect, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on cases filed before the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal or on new cases filed before it comes into effect one year after its deposit, in this case, on 30 April 2021. As the present Application was filed on 19 February 2021, that is, two months and eleven days before the effective date of the withdrawal of the Declaration, it is therefore not affected. iii. Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the violations alleged by the Applicants occurred after the Respondent State became a Party to the Protocol.4 iv. Territorial jurisdiction, insofar as that the violations occurred on the territory of the Respondent State, which is a Party to the Charter and the Protocol. 28. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. 3 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; Kouassi Kouamé Patrice and Baba Sylla v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, AfCHPR, Application No. 015 /2021, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 23; Kouadio Kobena Fory v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (merits and reparations) (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 682, § 26. 4 Fory v. Côte d’Ivoire, supra, § 27. 8