28. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. The Court further recalls that on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect twelve (12) months after the instrument of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.5 This Application, having been filed before the said date, specifically on 24 January 2018, that is, before the withdrawal took effect, is thus unaffected. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 29. Regarding its temporal jurisdiction, the Court observes that the violations alleged in present Application emanate from the Applicant’s trial which was concluded with the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal’s judgment delivered on 20 June 2015. The Court of Appeal’s decision, the Court observes, was delivered after the Respondent State had ratified the Protocol.6 The Court thus holds that it has temporal jurisdiction in this Application. 30. As regards its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that all the violations alleged by the Applicant happened within the territory of the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court holds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 31. In light of all the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. 5 Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 35-39. Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme (LIDHO) and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 041/2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 58. 6 8