38. The amici curiae did not submit on the jurisdiction of the Court. *** 39. The Court reiterates that its temporal jurisdiction is determined from the date of entry into force of the Protocol which established it.7 Also, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity, the Court cannot a priori consider allegations of human rights violations that occurred before the Respondent State became a party to the Protocol, unless the alleged violations are continuing.8 40. In the Instant case, the Court notes that the alleged violations are said to have occurred, between the year 2000 and 2016, and both Parties concur on this fact. However, even though some of the alleged violations occurred before the Respondent State had ratified the Protocol on 10 February 2006, they continued thereafter, and other new alleged violations also arose thereafter as it emerges from submissions of both Parties and affirmed by outcome of the public hearing. 41. Furthermore, during the public hearing, the Respondent State’s own witness number 1 testified that between the years of 2008 and 2017, there was an upsurge of attacks, mutilations and killings of PWA. 42. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the objection raised by the Respondent State and finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear this Application. Ligue Ivorienne des Droits de l’Homme and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 041-2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 58. 8 Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise Ilboudo & the Burkinabè Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 68; and Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017, Judgment of 1 December 2022, § 18. 7 11