B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 27. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,9 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding with the determination of the Application. 28. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has 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 effect twelve (12) months after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.10 This Application, having been filed before the said date, is thus unaffected by it. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 29. Regarding its temporal jurisdiction, the Court observes that the basis of the alleged violations, in this Application, is the Applicants’ trial which was concluded with the Court of Appeal’s judgment delivered on 20 February 2015. The Court of Appeal’s decision, the Court observes, was delivered after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol. The Court thus holds that it has temporal jurisdiction in this Application. 30. As regards its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicants happened within the territory of the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court holds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 9 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 35-39. 10 9