001092 34. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection that the Court is acting, in the instant matter, as a supreme appellate court and finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the matter. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 35.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction is not being challenged by the Respondent State. Besides, nothing on record indicates that the Court does not have personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. The Court, accordingly, 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, allowing individuals to bring cases directly before it, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Protocol; (ii) It has temporal subsequent to the jurisdiction insofar as the alleged Respondent State’s establishing the Court but before making violations ratification the Declaration of the occurred Protocol required under Article 34(6). (iii) It has territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the case occurred in the Respondent State’s territory. 36. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. Vi. ADMISSIBILITY 37. 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’. \ 10 Yaw2