of deposit of the notice of such withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020. This Application having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction. 27. With regard to temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter, Protocol and had deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol and therefore finds that its temporal jurisdiction has been satisfied. 28. The Court also notes that it has territorial jurisdiction given that the alleged violations occurred in the Respondent State’s territory. 29. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 30. Article 6(2) of the Protocol provides: “the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter.” 31. Pursuant to Rule 50(1) of the Rules, “[t]he Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an Application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6 (2) of the Protocol and these Rules.” 32. Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: Applications filed before the Court shall comply with all of the following conditions: a. Indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity; 8