26. With regard to the second aspect of the Respondent State’s objection, the
Court notes that it concerns the claim that it does not have jurisdiction to
grant an order for release. The Court recalls Article 27(1) of the Protocol
which provides that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a
human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the
violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.”
Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to grant different types of reparations,
including release from prison, provided that the alleged violation has been
established.11 The Court, therefore, dismisses the objection on this aspect.
27. For these reasons, the Court dismisses the objection raised by the
Respondent State on both aspects and holds that it has material jurisdiction
to hear this Application.
B. Other aspects of jurisdiction
28. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to its
personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule
49(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are
fulfilled before proceeding.
29. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in
paragraph 2 of this judgment that, on 21 November 2019, the Respondent
State deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, an
instrument withdrawing its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the
Protocol. The Court further recalls that it has held that the withdrawal of a
Declaration does not have any retroactive effect and it also has no bearing
on matters pending prior to the filing of the instrument withdrawing the
Declaration, or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect.12 Since
any such withdrawal of the Declaration takes effect twelve (12) months after
the notice of withdrawal is deposited, the effective date for the Respondent
11
Rajabu Yusuph v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2017, Ruling of 24
March 2022 (admissibility), § 27.
12 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 35-39.
8