the Protocol, and therefore that it has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the same. c) Temporal jurisdiction 66. The Court holds that, in the instant case, the relevant dates are the date of the entry into force, for the Respondent State, of the above-mentioned international instruments ratified by that State, and that of the deposition of the declaration prescribed by Article 34(6) of the Protocol allowing individuals and non-governmental organizations to bring cases directly to the Court. Given that the facts on which the alleged violations are based took place after the aforesaid dates (supra. paragraphs 44 and 48), the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear the case. d) 67.The Territorial jurisdiction Court notes that the facts on which the alleged violations are based occurred on the territory of the Respondent State. It therefore holds that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. 68. It therefore follows from all the foregoing considerations that the Court has the jurisdiction to hear the instant case. Vi. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 69.According to the aforementioned Rule 39 of the Rules, “the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application in accordance with Article 50 and 56 of the Charter, and Rule 40 of these Rules”. 17 WL e_ NE Cex L— 4 eo YP a