out that the obligation of State Parties to the Charter to protect the rights they recognize has no limitation. 142. The Applicant State also points out that the fact that the Protocol does not limit territorial jurisdiction to the territory of the Respondent State reflects the deliberate intention of its drafters to broaden its scope. 143. According to the Applicant State, the Court's territorial jurisdiction is established, provided that the alleged violations are committed in the territory of any of the AU Member, which is a State party to the Protocol. * 144. In its Reply, the Respondent State asserts that the judgments referred to by the Applicant State may give the wrong impression that the only relevant criterion is that the event[s] in question took place on the territory of a State Party. It argues that the content of the said judgments simply means that territorial jurisdiction had been established because the alleged violations took place on the territory of a State Party, precisely, the Respondent State. 145. The Respondent State reiterates that the Court has territorial jurisdiction only where the facts of the case or the alleged violations took place in the territory of the Respondent State, as it emerges from two recent judgments delivered by the Court in Safinaz Bint Mohamed Ben Elmejoul Ben Ali and Others v. the Republic of Tunisia and Lompo Bahanla v. Burkina Faso. 146. The Respondent State argues that if the sole relevant criterion were the status of State party, the Court would not have consistently stated in the English and French versions of the rulings that jurisdiction was established since the facts took place in the territory of the Respondent State. 147. The Respondent State further argues that the Court’s website indicates that “[it] may only hear cases filed against countries that have ratified the Protocol and deposited the declaration provided for in Article 34(6) in cases 35