i. Personal jurisdiction insofar as, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration. On 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court has ruled that this withdrawal had no impact on pending cases, or on new cases brought before the entry into force of the said withdrawal one year after the deposit of the instrument relating thereto, in this case, on 22 November 2020.7 The present Application, which was lodged before the Respondent State deposited the instrument withdrawing its Declaration, is therefore not affected. ii. Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations were committed after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter. In addition, the alleged violations are of a continuing nature, as the Applicant’s conviction was upheld despite what he considers to be an unfair trial.8 iii. Territorial jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations were committed on the territory of the Respondent State. 28. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the present Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 29. Under 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.” 7 8 Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 33-39; see also Umuhoza v. Rwanda, supra, § 67 Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 77. 8