2015. The Court further notes that the Court of Appeal’s judgment was
delivered after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the
Protocol. Further, the Applicant remains incarcerated, waiting for execution
of a sentence that he claims emanated from an unfair trial.8 As the Court
has previously held, in such a case the violations are deemed to be
continuing which fact confers the Court with temporal jurisdiction to
scrutinise such claims.9
30. As regards its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that all the violations
alleged by the Applicant happened within the territory of the Respondent
State. In the circumstances, the Court holds that its territorial jurisdiction is
established.
31. Considering all the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear
this Application.
VI.
ADMISSIBILITY
32. In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “[t]he Court shall rule on the
admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the
Charter.”
33. 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.”
34. Rule 50(2) of the Rules,10 which in substance restates the provisions of
Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows:
8
Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits)
(14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 84.
9 Nobert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 68;
Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017, Judgment of 1
December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 18.
10 Rule 40, Rules of Court, 2 June 2010.
9