The Court thus considers that the violation alleged is continuing in nature and finds that it has temporal jurisdiction. 34. Furthermore, with regard to the right to a fair trial and fair compensation, it emerges from the records that by a judgment of 13 July 2007, the Court of Appeal of Abidjan ordered the Respondent State to pay the Applicants the sum of Eight Hundred and Twelve Million Four Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand (812,488,000) CFA Francs as compensation for the loss of their customary rights over the expropriated parcel of land. The Court notes from the records that, as at the date of filing of the present Application, the Respondent State had not yet paid the compensation. 35. The Court observes that in such circumstances, the Applicants’ rights to compensation, which arose before the entry into force of the Protocol, and their right to execution of the judgment of 13 July 2007, are of a continuing nature as long as the claim remains unenforced and there has not been any judicial action on the same. 36. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the second limb of the objection to its temporal jurisdiction and finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear the present Application with respect to the right to ownership over the parcel of land sold to third parties, the right to have one’s case heard, the right to dignity, the right to equality before the law and the right to enjoy one’s rights and freedoms without discrimination of any kind. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 37. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not challenge its material and territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court must examine its jurisdiction over these aspects and ensure that, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Application is admissible. 38. Having noted that there is no information on record that it does not have jurisdiction on these aspects, the Court holds that it has 10