which allows individuals and NGOs to bring cases directly before the Court. In this vein, the Court recalls its earlier position that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its Declaration on 25 March 2020 does not have any effect on the instant Application, as the withdrawal was made subsequent to filing of the application.9 ii. It has temporal jurisdiction given that the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Protocol. Furthermore, the alleged violations are continuing in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers an unfair process.10 iii. It has territorial jurisdiction considering that the alleged violations occurred within the territory of the Respondent State. 29. In light of all of the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 30. Pursuant 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”. 31. In line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, “the Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and these […]Rules.” 32. The Court notes that Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: 9 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 38. Msuguri v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 30 and Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, §§ 23-24. 10 8