000514 in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned."3 26. ln the instant case, the Court flnds that the Applicant alleges that his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter have been violated. 27. Accordingly, the Respondent state's objection in this regard is dismissed and the Court therefore holds that it has material jurisdiction. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 28. The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction have not been contested by the Respondent state, and that nothing on record indicates that it does not have jurisdiction. The Court therefore holds that: (i) it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) thereof, which enables individuals to institute cases direcfly before it, in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol. (ii) it has temporal jurisdiction in view of the fact that the alleged violations are continuous in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers as irregularities4; and (iii) lt has territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent State. 29. From the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction 3 Alex Thomas v Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 ArcLR 465 g 130; see also Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 ArcLR 599 S 29; chistopher Jonas v Tanzania (Merits), g 28, Apptication No. 003/2014, Judgment ot 24111120'17 (Merits), tngabire Victoire umuhoza v. Repibtic oi'Rwanda (lngabhe Umuhoza v Rwanda (Merits)), g 52. 4 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoutaye Nikiema atias Abtasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise boudo and Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de I'Homme et des Peuptes v Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (2013) 1 AfCLR 197 g 71 to 77 I @-