to establish the supply of arms, ammunition and uniforms to the said armed group.32 169. In the light of the foregoing, the involvement of the RDF, in the conflict between M23 and FARDC is established. It is also established that the said involvement had an impact on the hostilities carried out. The Court also finds that the Respondent State is involved in the conflict between M23 and the Applicant State while the Applicant State is involved through FARDC making the armed conflict an international armed conflict. 170. Consequently, the Court declares that the exercise by the Respondent State of its extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot be contested. In the circumstances, the Court dismisses the objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction and confirms its jurisdiction accordingly. 171. Accordingly, the Court holds that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 172. The Court notes that its personal and temporal jurisdiction are not in dispute. Nevertheless, under Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must ensure that all aspects of its jurisdiction are satisfied before continuing to examine the Application. 173. With regard to personal jurisdiction, the Court notes that this being an interState matter, both the Applicant State and the Respondent State are Parties to the Protocol. The Court therefore finds that it has personal jurisdiction to hear the present Application. 174. As regards temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the facts relating to the alleged violations are said to have occurred from November 2021, that 32 Summary of midterm report. 41