under Article 7 of the Charter. The Court, therefore, dismisses the third ground for the objection to its material jurisdiction. 25. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 26. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not dispute the Court’s personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,10 it must ensure that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding with the determination of the Application. 27. Regarding personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration. The Court has held that such withdrawal does not apply retroactively. Therefore, it has no bearing on matters pending before the Court prior to filing of the instrument withdrawing the Declaration or new cases filed before the withdrawal took effect, one (1) year after the notice of withdrawal was deposited, that is, on 22 November 2020. Hence, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction in the present Application as it was filed before the withdrawal of the Declaration. 28. As regards its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the relevant dates, in relation to the Respondent State, are those of entry into force of the Charter and the Protocol. 29. In the instant case, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant are based on the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal rendered on 29 June 2005 and 21 May 2009, respectively, that is, after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, 10 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 9