0a0n2 vilt order the Respondent State to pay the entire cost of the proceedings to Counsel Sont6 Emile, Barrister at the Court, as of right." 16. ln its Response, the Respondent State prays the Court to "declare the Application inadmissible; declare the Applicant unfounded; il declare and rule that there has not been any human rights violation by the Respondent State; IV V V. dismiss the Applicant's claim for damages order the Applicant to pay the entire cost of the proceedings" ON JURISDICTION 17. Pursuant to Rule 39 (1) of the Rules, the Court "shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction". The Court must, in that regard, satisfy itself that it has personal, material, temporal and territorialjurisdiction to hear the instant Application. 18. The Court notes that the Parties do not contest its jurisdiction, and that in light of the evidence on file, the jurisdiction is established as indicated hereunder: Personaljurisdiction: the Application was filed on 11 July, 2016, that is, subsequent to the dates mentioned herein-above. The Respondent State ratified the Protocol and deposited the Declaration prescribed under Article 34 (6); Material jurisdiction: the Applicant alleges mainly the violation of the provisions of the Charter and of the ICCPR, instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party. Temporal jurisdiction: the alleged violations started prior of the deposit of the declaration, but continued thereafter, that is, up to 5 June, 2014, 6 r \