of his rights under the Charter. The Applicant also states that the alleged violations occurred within the Respondent State’s territory. 34. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise objections to the personal, temporal and territorial aspects of the Court’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,7 the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding to consider the Application. 35. With regard to personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment that, on 21 November 2020, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court has held that such withdrawal does not apply retroactively. Hence, it has no bearing on pending cases as well as new cases filed before 22 November 2020, which is the day on which the withdrawal took effect, being a period of one (1) year after its deposit. 8 36. The instant Application having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal of the Declaration, is thus not affected by the said withdrawal. Therefore, the Court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction. 37. The Court has temporal jurisdiction insofar as the alleged violations contained in the Application were committed after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. Additionally, such alleged violations are of a continuing nature, as the Applicant is currently serving a life sentence in prison, which he maintains was unfairly imposed and thus constitutes a violation of his right to a fair trial.9 7 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 35-39. See also Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 9 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objection) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 8 10