Commission in compliance with the requirements under Article 5(3) of the Protocol. In light of the preceding, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to examine the Application. 35. As for its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that violations alleged by the Applicants commenced before the Respondent State became a Party to the Charter or the Protocol. However, given that the law that is allegedly causing the violations is still in force, the Court holds that the violations were continuing at the time the Application was filed, which is after the Respondent State became a party to the Protocol and deposited its Declaration.12 The Court thus finds that its temporal jurisdiction is satisfied. 36. With regard to its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicants occurred within the territory of the Respondent State, which is a state party to the Protocol. In the circumstances, the Court holds that it has territorial jurisdiction. 37. In light of all the above, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 38. Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “[t]he Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter”. 39. In line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules,13 “the Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an Application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6 (2) of the Protocol and these Rules.” 12 13 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (Judgment) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, §§ 51-53. Rule 40, Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 11