30. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and holds that it has material jurisdiction to consider the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 31. The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction are not contested by the Respondent State. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,8 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding. 32. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls as indicated in paragraph 2 of the judgment that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect twelve (12) months after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.9 This Application having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 33. In respect of its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that all the violations alleged by the Applicant are based on proceedings arising from the decision of the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal rendered on 6 August 2010 and 28 November 2011, respectively, that is, after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol, as well as deposited the Declaration. Furthermore, the alleged violations are continuing in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers to be an unfair process. Consequently, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application. 8 9 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 35-39. 10