such orders as would remedy the violation(s) including, where necessary, the quashing of a conviction and release of an applicant. The preceding follows from a correct interpretation of Article 27(1) of the Protocol. The Court thus finds without merit the Respondent State’s allegation that it does not have the power to order the quashing of a conviction and release of a convict. 26. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 27. The Court notes that the Parties do not contest other aspects of its jurisdiction. However, being cognizant of Rule 49(1) of the Rules,6 the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met before proceeding. 28. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and had deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court further recalls that on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes place 12 months after notice of such withdrawal has come into effect, in this case, on 22 November 2020.7 This Application, having been filed on 5 December 2018, which was before the said date, is thus unaffected by the withdrawal. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 29. Regarding its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the present Application is based on the Applicant’s trial and appeal, which were concluded when the Court of Appeal pronounced its judgment on 30 June 6 7 Rule 49(1) of the Rules of the Court, 2020. Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 35-39. 8