the Rules,7 the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding to consider the Application. 33. 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 its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court has held that such withdrawal does not apply retroactively. Hence, it has no effect on pending and new cases filed before the entry into force of the said withdrawal one (1) year after its deposit which, in the present case, is on 22 November 2020.8 34. The instant Applications having being filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal of the Declaration, are thus not affected by the said withdrawal. Therefore, the Court concludes that it has personal jurisdiction. 35. The Court has temporal jurisdiction insofar as the alleged violations contained in the Applications were committed after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. Additionally, the alleged violations are of a continuing nature, as the Applicants are currently serving their sentences in prison, which they maintain were unfairly imposed and thus constitute a violation of their right to a fair trial.9 36. The Court has territorial jurisdiction given that all the alleged violations occurred within the Respondent State’s territory. 37. In light of all the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Applications. 7 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 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. 9 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (jurisdiction) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 8 10