B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 33. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not dispute its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,13 the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding to consider the Application. 34. Having noted that there is nothing on the record to indicate otherwise, the Court concludes that it has: i. Personal jurisdiction, in so far as the Respondent State is a party to the Charter, the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. In this vein, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no bearing on cases pending before it took effect. Given that the present Application was already pending before the withdrawal, the latter has no bearing thereon.14 ii. Temporal jurisdiction given that the violations alleged in the present Application occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. iii. Territorial jurisdiction considering that the violations alleged in the Application occurred within the territory of the Respondent State. 35. In light of all of the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. 13 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 38. See also Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 14 10