37. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of the present Judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect twelve (12) months after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020. 13 This Application, having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction to hear this Application. 38. In respect of its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that all the violations alleged by the Applicants are based on proceedings arising from the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal rendered on 31 May 2007 and 2 March 2012, respectively, that is, after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol, as well as deposited the Declaration. Furthermore, the alleged violations are continuing in nature since the Applicants remain convicted on the basis of what they consider to be an unfair process. Consequently, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application. 39. As for its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicants happened within the territory of the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court finds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 40. In light of all the above, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. 13 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 35-39. 12