involving individuals and non-governmental organisations. The cases must concern allegations of human rights and the alleged violations must have occurred in the State concerned after ratifying the Protocol, except where the violations are ongoing”. 148. As for the procedure and conditions for filing a case, it notes that “territorial jurisdiction requires the alleged violations to have occurred in the State concerned”. 149. Lastly, the Respondent State submits that it has no understanding of the Applicant State’s suggestion that a different approach to territorial jurisdiction would enable the Court to recognise its jurisdiction over States which are not parties to the Protocol and the Charter. 150. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. It added that territory is the sole criterion for assessing territorial jurisdiction, because it is only in this area that it could fulfil the obligations arising from the treaties it had ratified. It emphasises that the Applicant State, through the new parameter that it purports to establish, seeks to involve the Court in matters relating to the use of force, peacekeeping and security. 151. Lastly, the Respondent State points out that establishing territorial jurisdiction on the basis of ratification of the Protocol creates confusion, insofar as such ratification does not apply to personal jurisdiction.. 152. The Respondent State thus submits that the Court cannot deviate from its established jurisprudence and should accordingly decline jurisdiction insofar as the facts occurred outside its territory. *** 153. The Court recalls that it emerges generally from its jurisprudence that in most of the applications brought before it by individuals and NGOs with 36