25. With respect to its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State ratified the Charter and the Protocol and continued after the Respondent State had deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. Consequently, the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to consider the Application.6 26. The Court further finds that it has territorial jurisdiction as the facts of the case occurred on the Respondent State’s territory. 27. From the foregoing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. VII. ADMISSIBILITY 28. Article 6(2) of the Protocol provides that, “the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter.” Pursuant to Rule 50(1) of the Rules,7 “[t]he 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.” 29. Rule 50(2) of the Rules,8 which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: Applications filed before the Court shall comply with all the following conditions: a. disclose the identity of the Applicant notwithstanding the latter’s request for anonymity; b. comply with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter; 6 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. LA LIDHO, LE MIDH, LA FIDH & others v. Republic of Côte D’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Application No. 041/2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 §§ 58. 7 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 8 Rule 40, Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 7