A. Objection to temporal jurisdiction 33. The Respondent State objects to the temporal jurisdiction of the Court arguing that the alleged violations which date back to the year 2000, occurred prior to it becoming a party to the Protocol. 34. According to the Respondent State, the cases cited by the Applicants, that is, Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania and Urban Mkandawire v. Malawi, in support of their submission on temporal jurisdiction can be distinguished herein. To this end, the Respondent State contends that the crux of the above-mentioned cases with respect to jurisdiction is the deposit of the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol and that they therefore fall under personal jurisdiction. In distinction, it argues that, its objection herein is on temporal jurisdiction. 35. Citing the matters of Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso and Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania, the Respondent State submits that it became a party to the Protocol in 2006, and that since treaties do not apply retroactively, the Court does not have temporal jurisdiction to adjudicate on the killings of PWA which occurred from the year 2000 through 2006. 36. During the public hearing, the Respondent State contended that since the Applicants did not enumerate the victims of their alleged violations, did not provide names and dates of the said violations, and made reference only to the year 2000, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction is not satisfied. 37. Citing Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania and Urban Mkandawire v. Malawi, the Applicants aver that the alleged violations are continuing and therefore, the Application satisfies the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. In this regard, they submit that even if the reported violations began in 2000, which is prior to the Respondent State becoming a party to the Protocol, the effects of the alleged violations continued thereafter. 10