jurisdiction, that the application is admissible and that the Applicant's claims are founded in fact and in law.? Vi. JURISDICTION 33. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, "The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned". Furthermore, Rule 39(1) of the Rules provides that "the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ..." . 34. After a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and having found that there is nothing in the file to indicate that it does not have jurisdiction in this case, the Court finds that it has: i. Material jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the Applicant alleges a violation of Articles 7(1)(a)(d) and 26 of the Charter, Articles 2(3)(c) and 14(1) of the ICCPR to which the Respondent State is a party and Article 10 of the UDHR®. ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as, as stated in paragraph 2 of this Ruling, the effective date of the withdrawal of the Declaration by the Respondent State is 1 March 2017.4 iii. Temporal jurisdiction, in so far as, the alleged violations took place after the entry into force for the Respondent State of the 2 African Commision on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 153 §§ 38-42. 3 See Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 257, § 76; Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 325, § 33. 4 See paragraph 2 of this Judgment. 10