Court. This position was reiterated by the Applicants during their oral submissions at the public hearings. 63. The Court further notes that the Applicants are Kenyan nationals; they bring the Application against a State Party to the Protocol which on 29 March 2010, made the declaration in terms of Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, accepting the jurisdiction of this Court to receive cases from individuals. The Court therefore finds that it has jurisdiction ratione personae to receive the Application. iii. Jurisdiction ratione temporis 64. The Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis has not been challenged. The Court has held in its judgment of 28 March 2014 in Application 013/2011- the Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zanga, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise llboudo & the Burkinabe Movement on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Burkina Faso, that the relevant dates regarding its ratione temporis jurisdiction are those of the entry into force of the Charter, the Protocol as well as that of the deposit of the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to receive Applications from individuals. 65. In the instant case, the Respondent ratified the Charter on 18 February 1984, the Protocol on 7 February 2006 and deposited the declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March 2010. 66. As far as the Court is concerned, the violations alleged by the Applicants in the instant case do not constitute instantaneous but continuous violations of the international obligations of the Respondent, and as such gives the Court jurisdiction to hear the matter: While the alleged violations occurred before the filing of the special declaration by the Respondent, i.e. 29 March 2010, they were continuing after this date. Indeed, the Applicants are still in detention, and some of the cases 20