appears from the treaty or is otherwise esta blished, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took plac e or any situation which ceased to exist befo re the date of the entry into force of the trea ty with respect to that par ty». To circumvent the application of the prin ciple of non-retroactivity of the treaties in the instant case, the 2"d Applicant relies neither on a different intention of the parties aris ing from the Protocol itself, nor on a different intention otherwise established. 15. In fact, to determine the ratione tem poris jurisdiction of the Court, in a matter such as this one, there must be cumulative con sideration of the dates of entry into forc e in regard to the Respondent State, of the Afric an Charter on Human and Peoples' Righ ts, the Protocol establishing the Court and the optional declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court to receive applicat ions from individuals and non-governmenta l organizations as provided for in Article 34{6 ) of the Protocol. If the alleged violation had occurred prior to any of these crucial date s, the principle of non-retroactivity would have applied in full force, regardless of whether the alleged violation took place after the othe r dates. 16. In the instant case, and in relation to the issue under consideration, the need to take into account the date of entry into force of the Protocol with regard to the Respon dent State is all the more crucial as it is inde ed the Protocol that specifically conferre d the contentious jurisdiction on the Court (See Articles 3 and 5 of the Protocol). How cou ld one consider an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court while disregardin g the date of entry into force of the Protocol con ferring the said jurisdiction on the Court? To me, that is simply inconceivable. 17. Once again, in my opinion, to adequa tely respond to the specific argument rais ed by the 2"d Applicant, the Court ought to hav e clearly endorsed the Respondent's pos ition , and indicated that the relevant date to be considered with regard to the Responden t in determining its ratione temporis jurisdiction in this matter, should be that of the entry into force of the Protocol establishing the Cou rt, then subsequently rely on the continu ing nature of the alleged violation in order to determine its jurisdiction. 5