17. Based on the above provisions, the Court must, in each Application, conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 18. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Respondent State does not raise any objection to jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Court, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, must satisfy itself that it has material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction before proceeding to examine the Application. Having noted that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court considers that it has: i. Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicants allege violation of their rights protected by the Charter and the ICCPR, to which the Respondent State is a Party.2 ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as, as already indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment, the Respondent State, on 29 April 2020, deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration. The Court reiterates its position 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 took effect, in the instant case, on 30 April 2021. The present Applications, having been submitted before the Respondent State filed the instrument of withdrawal on 23 April 2019, are not affected. iii. Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the violations alleged by the Applicants occurred after the Respondent State became a Party to the Charter and the Protocol.3 The Respondent State became a Party to the ICCPR on 26 March 1992. Kouadio Kobena v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 034/2017, Judgment of 2 December 2021 (merits and reparations), § 32; Kouassi Kouame and Baba Sylla v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 015/2021, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 24. 2 3 6