deposited the Declaration. Consequently, it cannot invoke its sovereignty to evade compliance with these instruments and all other human rights instruments that it has ratified. 27. The Court considers that, in any event, it has material jurisdiction where the Application before it alleges violations of human rights protected by human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.5 28. In the present case, the Court notes that, as indicated in paragraph 5 of this judgment, the Applicants allege violation of several human rights, namely, the rights to liberty and security, the right to have their cause heard, the right to information and the right to express and disseminate their opinions, protected by Articles 7 and 9 of the Charter, and Article 9 of the ICCPR, human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent.6 29. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this issue and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 30. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise any objections to its personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must ensure that all admissibility requirements are met. 31. Having noted that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court holds that it has: i. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State has deposited the Declaration. 5 Hongue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin (merits) (2020) 4 AfCLR 749, § 26; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45. 6 See paragraph 2 above. 8