tXr009'2 it has personal jurisdiction as the Respondent state is party to the Protocol and deposited the dectaration prescribed in Article 34(6) of the Protocol which enabled the Applicant to seize the court in accordance with Article 5 (3) of the protocol. Moreover, the Apptication was fited within one (1) year from the time set by the court to give effect to the withdrawal of the declaration by the Respondent State; I it has materialjurisdiction in as much as the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 1 and 14 of the charter, Articte 2(3) (c) of the lnternational covenant on civit and poriticar Rights (rccpR), Articre 6(1) of the lnternational covenant on Economic, social and cultural Rights (lcEScR), and Article 17(2) ot the universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Alr these instruments have been ratified by the Respondent state and the court has the power to interpret and apply them by virtue of Article 3 of the protocol. 26 ilt it has temporaljurisdiction, since the alleged violations are continuing in nature IV it has territorialjurisdiction given that the facts of the case occurred in the territory of a state party to the protocol, namely, the Respondent State. Based on the above, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider this case VI. ADMISSIBILITY 27 According to Article 6 (2) of the Protocol, "The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter.', e