22. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has material jurisdiction to examine this Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 23. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,7 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding to consider the Application. 24. As regards its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in paragraph 2 of this judgement, that the Respondent State, on 21 November 2019, deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission the instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court has held that the withdrawal has no retroactive effect, nor does it affect cases pending before the Court before the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration, nor does it affect new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect one year after the deposit of the notice of withdrawal, that is, on 22 November 2020.8 The instant Application was filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, and is, therefore, not affected by the said withdrawal. The Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to examine the instant Application. 25. The Court has temporal jurisdiction in respect of the Application insofar as the alleged violations were committed after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, the alleged violations are continuing in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers an unfair procedure.9 7 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 33-39; see also Umuhoza v. Rwanda, supra, § 67. 9 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 77. 8 7