50. In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicants allege that certain actions of the Respondent State, and its institutions, were not performed in line with the standards provided for in the Charter, the ICCPR, the ICESCR as well as the Algiers Convention. The present Application does not, therefore, request the Court to rule as an appellate court on the decisions rendered by the domestic courts but rather to vet the conformity of the said decisions with international human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is party. 51. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. 52. Pursuant to its constant jurisprudence, the Court confirms that it has material jurisprudence insofar as the Applicant alleges the violation of rights guaranteed by the Charter or any other relevant human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. In this regard, the Court notes that the Applicant alleges the violation of the following rights protected by the Charter, the Algiers Convention, the ICCPR and the ICESCR: the right to effective remedy and to seek reparations, the right to respect for life and physical and moral integrity, the right to enjoy the best state of health, the right to a satisfactory and global environment, the right to information and the right to the preservation of nature and natural resources. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the Application. B. Objection to temporal jurisdiction 53. The Respondent State raises two objections to the temporal jurisdiction of the Court, firstly, that the Declaration has no retroactive effect and, secondly, that the violations alleged in the Application are not continuing in nature. (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287 § 35. 16