54. The Respondent State affirms that the Declaration it deposited in 2013 cannot apply to events that occurred in 2006, and, therefore, to all the alleged violations of the right to life and physical integrity, the right to an effective remedy, the right to health, the right to a healthy environment and the right to information. * 55. For their part, the Applicants aver that the Respondent State ratified the Charter on 6 January 1992 and became a party to the Protocol on 7 January 2003, and that having ratified these instruments, it has an obligation to comply with these provisions, even if it only deposited the Declaration in 2013. The Applicants contend that in its judgment in Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania, the Court clarified that a State Party’s obligation to protect human rights guaranteed by the Charter takes effect immediately upon ratification. Thus, in their view, the State is liable for the violation of the right to life, the right to an effective remedy, the right to health, the right to a healthy environment and the right to information. 56. The Applicants further submit that the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to States Parties does not run from the date of deposit of the Declaration insofar as that provision does not relate to the Court’s temporal jurisdiction, but merely clarifies the Court’s personal jurisdiction. According to the Applicants, the temporal jurisdiction of the Court extends to all violations occurring after the ratification of the Charter. 57. In this regard, the Applicants affirm that in its Ruling on Preliminary Objections Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, the Court held that its jurisdiction derives from the ratification of its founding Protocol and not from the Declaration. *** 58. The Court notes that its temporal jurisdiction is determined from the date of entry into force of the Protocol which established it and not from the date of deposit of the declaration, the latter date relates only to its personal 17