which the Respondent State became a party unless the alleged violations are of a continuing nature.7 30. The Court notes that the alleged violations in the present Application resulted from the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State issued on 7 March 1995 and 10 June 1999 respectively, that is, after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter on 21 October 1986 and before becoming a party to the Protocol on 29 March 2010. 31. The Court also notes that the alleged violations continued after that date as the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers as an unfair process that led to his conviction of murder and sentence to death by the High Court of Tanzania sitting in Sumbawanga.8 32. Given the preceding, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 33. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to its personal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,9 the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction have been met. 34. With regard 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 deposited the Declaration. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission 7 Evodius Rutechura v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 February 2021) 5 AfCLR 7, § 29(i). 8 Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), supra, § 84; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 29(ii); Beneficiaries of Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 9 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2 June 2010. 9