22. Rule 49(1) of the Rules provides that “the Court shall ascertain its
jurisdiction and the admissibility of an Application in accordance with the
Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”.
23.
Based on the abovementioned provisions, the Court must, in each
application, conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and rule on
any objections thereto, if necessary.
24. In the instant case, the Respondent State having defaulted, does not raise
any objection to the Court’s material, temporal, personal and territorial
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Court must ensure that its jurisdiction is
established with respect to these aspects. Having found that there is nothing
in the record to indicate that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has:
i.
Material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges violations of human
rights protected by the Charter and the ICCPR.4
ii.
Personal jurisdiction insofar as the Respondent State deposited the
Declaration on 23 July 2013, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment.
On 29 April 2020, it deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the said
Declaration. In this regard, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that the
withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing
on cases pending at the time of the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal,
nor on new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect one year after its
deposit, in this case, on 30 April 2021. As the present Application was filed
on 19 February 2021, that is, two month and eleven days before the
effective date of the withdrawal of the Declaration, it is therefore not
affected.
iii.
Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the violations alleged by the Applicant
occurred after the Respondent State became a Party to the Protocol.5
iv. Territorial jurisdiction, insofar as the violations occurred in the territory of
the Respondent State, which is a Party to the Charter and the Protocol.
4 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; Kouassi
Kouamé Patrice and Baba Sylla v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 015/2021,
Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 23; Fory v. Côte d’Ivoire, supra, § 26.
5 Fory v. Côte d’Ivoire, ibid,, § 27.
7