1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and Application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 20. The Court further notes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules it “…shall conduct preliminarily examination of its jurisdiction…in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 21. The Court notes that there is no contention with regard to its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application. 22. The Court notes, with respect to its personal jurisdiction that, as earlier stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, 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. 23. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that, the withdrawal of a Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one year after the date of deposit of the notice of such withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020.4 This Application having been filed before the Respondent State’s withdrawal came into effect, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction. 24. With respect to material jurisdiction, the Court reiterates, as it has consistently held in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, that it has jurisdiction to consider any Application filed before it, provided that the 4 Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) supra, §§ 37-39. 6