000888 B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 22.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction have not been contested by the Respondent State, and nothing on the record indicates that it lacks such jurisdiction. The Court therefore holds that: (i) it has personal jurisdiction given that the Respondent state is a party to the Protocol and has made the Declaration prescribed under Article 34(6) thereof, which enabled the Applicants to fite this Application pursuant to Article s(3) of the Protocol. (ii) it has temporal jurisdiction in view of the fact that the alleged viotations are continuous in nature since the Applicants remain convicted on the basis of what they consider as irregularities2; and (iii) it has territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the mafter occurred within the territory of a state Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent state. 23.|n light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the case VI. ADMISSIBILITY 24.1n terms of 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." Pursuant to Rule 3g(1) of the Rules, "the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of the admissibility of the [...] Application in accordance with Articles 50 and 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules.', 40 of the Rules, which in substance restates the content of Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: 25. Rule 2 See Beneficiaies of late Norbeft Zongo, Abdoutaye Nikiema a/ras Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise lboudo and Mouvement Burkinabe des Droifs de I'Homme et des Peuples v Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (2013) 1 AfCLR 197, gg 71 to 77. 7 -a