cases filed before 22 November 2020, the day on which the withdrawal took effect, being a period of one (1) year after its deposit.12 26. The instant Application having being filed on 15 June 2016, which was before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal of the Declaration, is thus not affected by the said withdrawal. The Court, therefore, concludes that it has personal jurisdiction in this matter. 27. The Court also finds that it has temporal jurisdiction insofar as the alleged violations in this 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 Applicants are currently serving their prison sentences, which they maintain were unfairly imposed and thus constitute a violation of their Charter rights.13 28. The Court also finds that it has territorial jurisdiction given that all the alleged violations are said to have occurred within the Respondent State’s territory. 29. In light of all 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.” 12 Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 35-39. See also Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 13 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (jurisdiction) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 8