B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 22. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding its personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it must satisfy itself that these aspects have been met. 23. The Court notes, with respect to its personal jurisdiction that, as earlier stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and on 29 March 2010, it deposited with the African Union Commission, the Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 24. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that, the withdrawal of a Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one (1) year after the date of deposit of the notice of such withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020.5 This application, having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction. 25. With regard to temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol and, had deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. It therefore finds that its temporal jurisdiction has been satisfied. 26. The Court also notes that it has territorial jurisdiction given that the alleged violations occurred in the Respondent State’s territory. 27. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear this application. 5 Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 37-39. 7