36. The Court also finds that it has territorial jurisdiction insofar as the violations alleged in the Application occurred within the territory of the Respondent State, which is a State Party to the Charter and the Protocol. 37. In light of all of the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 38. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application on account of conditions not provided for under Article 56 of the Charter. The Court will, therefore, consider these objections (A), before proceeding to consider the admissibility requirements provided for under the Charter, if necessary (B). A. Objections to admissibility not provided for under Article 56 of the Charter 39. The Respondent State raises two objections to admissibility not provided for under Article 56 of the Charter, namely, the filing of the Applicant’s Reply out of time, and the principle of sovereignty and independence of the judiciary. i. Objection based on the filing of the Applicant’s Reply out of time 40. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant filed his Reply outside the time-limits set by the Court without seeking leave, while compliance with time-limits is a requirement that cannot be waived except with the permission of the Court. 41. The Respondent State further contends that time-limits are set to be observed by the parties in a time bound sequence, and failure to observe time goes against optimal case management and expeditious settlement of disputes. 9