accordance with the international standards set out in the Charter or other applicable human rights instruments2. 29. Be that as it may, the Applicant alleges violation of the rights gr.raranteed by the Charter. 30.The Court therefore dismisses the objection raised by the Respondent in this regard, and holds that it has materialjurisdiction. ii) Ather aspects of jurisdiction 31. The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorialjurisdiction has not been contested by the Respondent, and nothing in the file indicates that the Court does not have jurisdiction. The Court therefore, holds that: (i) it has jurisdiction ratione personae given that the Respondent is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the declaration required under Article 34 (6) thereof, which enables individuals to institute cases directly before it, in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol (ii) it has jurisdiction ratione temporis in terms of the fact that the alleged violations are continuous in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers as irregularities3 ; (iii) it has jurisdiction rationae loci given that the facts of the matter occurred on the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent. 32^ From the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction and is therefore competent to hear the instant case. 2 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005 of 2013), Judgment of 20 November 2015, paragraph 130 and Mahamed Ahubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003 of 2012), Judgment of 3 June 2016, paragraph 29 3 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, pr:elimina s une 2013, ry objections, Judgment of tG 71 to 77. I 9 ,1,, , 'll/ e-t .f _) 4