jurisdiction. 59. In this regard, the Court notes that the dumping of toxic waste took place on 18 August 2006, after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol on 25 January 2004. Given that the facts took place after this date, the notion of continuous violation is not applicable to the original act of dumping of toxic waste, much less to the effects of the said dumping. 60. Accordingly, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear all the violations alleged by the Applicant and dismisses the objection raised by the Respondent State. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 61. The Court notes that no objection was raised on its personal and territorial jurisdiction. However, pursuant to Rule 49 (1) of the Rules, it has to ensure that conditions relating to this aspect of its jurisdiction are met before continuing with consideration of the Application. 62. Having found that no information contained in the file indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has: i. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State deposited the Declaration. On 29 April 2020, the Respondent State deposited, with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, the instrument withdrawing its Declaration. The Court has held that the withdrawal of its Declaration has no bearing on pending cases and on cases filed one (1) year before the entry into force of the instrument relating to it, that is, on 30 April 2021.17 ii. Territorial jurisdiction insofar as the violations alleged by the Applicants took place in the territory of the Respondent State which is a party to the Protocol and the Charter. Suy Bi Gohoré Émile and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, AfCHPR, Application N° 044/2019, Judgment of 15 July 2020 (merits), § 2. 17 18