21. On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every
Application, preliminarily conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and
dispose of objections thereto, if any.
22. In the instant Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State has
merely prayed that the Court should find that it “is not vested with jurisdiction
to adjudicate the Application” without providing any particulars as to the
alleged lack of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the lack of particulars to the
Respondent State’s prayer, given the prescriptions of Rule 49(1) of the
Rules, the Court will, nevertheless, proceed to assess all aspects of its
jurisdiction before further considering this Application, if necessary.
23. Regarding its material jurisdiction, the Court recalls that it has previously
held that Article 3(1) of the Protocol empowers it to examine an Application
provided that it contains allegations of violations of rights protected by the
Charter, or any other human rights instruments ratified by the concerned
Respondent State.3 Given that the Applicants are raising allegations of
violations of rights guaranteed under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the Charter,
the Court concludes that it has material jurisdiction to examine this
Application.
24. Concerning its personal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Respondent
State is a Party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration. Despite the
fact that the Respondent State subsequently withdrew its Declaration, on
21 November 2019, for the reasons stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment,
this Application is not affected by the said withdrawal.4 Accordingly, the
Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction.
25. With regard to its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the alleged
violations were committed after the Respondent State became a party to
the Protocol on 10 February 2006. Notably, the Applicants were convicted
3 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; Oscar
Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, § 24.
4 Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 540, § 67;
Laurent Munyadilikirwa v. Republic of Rwanda (admissibility) (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 793, § 2.
7