an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect 12 months after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020. This Application, having been filed before the Respondent State’s withdrawal came into effect, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction to hear this Application. 35. With regards to its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant happened within the territory of the Respondent State, which is a party to the Protocol. In the circumstances, the Court finds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 36. In light of all the above, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 37. 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”. 38. In line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, “the Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an Application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and these Rules.” 39. The Court notes that Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: Applications filed before the Court shall comply with all of the following conditions: a. Indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity; 10