000941 21. The Court notes that the instant Application raises allegations of human rights violations protected under Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter and by considering them in light of international instruments, it does not arrogate to itself the status of an appellate court or court of first instance. Accordingly, the Respondent State's objection in this regard is dismissed. 22. ln light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has material jurisdiction B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 23.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorialjurisdiction have not been contested by the Respondent State, and that nothing on record indicates that it does not have jurisdiction. The Court therefore holds that: (i) it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the declaration required under Article 34(6) thereof, which enables individuals to institute cases dlrectly before it, in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol. (ii) it has temporaljurisdiction in view of the fact that the alleged violations are continuous in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers as irregularitiesa; and (iii) lt has territorialjurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent State. 24.From the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction Tanzania, (hereinafter referred lo as"Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Merits)"), 529, Kenedy lvan supra note2at$26 See Application No. 01 3/201 1 . Ruling of 21106/2013 (Preliminary Objections), Abdoulaye Nikiema, Ernest Zongo, Blaise llboudo & Burkinabe Human and Peoples' Rights movement v. The Republic of Bu*ina Faso (herein after referred lo as"Zongo and others v Burkina Faso (Preliminary Objections)"), S S 71 to 77 4 7 (-\ \(J