2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 14. The Court underscores the provision of Rule 49(1) of the Rules that, “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminarily examination of its jurisdiction…in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 15. The Court notes that, even though nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, it is obligated to determine if it has jurisdiction to consider the Application. In view of this, with regards to its personal jurisdiction the Court notes, as earlier stated in this judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and on 29 March 2010, it deposited the Declaration with the African Union Commission. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 16. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one (1) year after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.2 Resultantly, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction. 17. As regards its material jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 2 and 7(1) of the Charter to which the Respondent State is a party and therefore its material jurisdiction has been satisfied. 18. With respect to its temporal jurisdiction, the Court underscores, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity that it cannot consider allegations of human rights violations that occurred before the Respondent State’s obligations were triggered unless the violations are continuing in nature. 2 Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 37-39. 5