10. The Court further recalls that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of Court”), it “shall conduct [a] preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”3 11. The Court notes that while, in the instant application, the Applicants’ submissions suggest that their case is ancillary to Application No. 006/2012, this earlier referred to application was already determined both on the merits and reparations.4 As such, an application that has already been determined cannot form a cause of action for a subsequent independent application, which would inevitably stand as a new application. 12. Given the above, the Court considers that the instant application is new, which necessitates that the Court determine its jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 13. At the outset, the Court notes that the Applicants have filed their application against a Respondent State which has not deposited the Declaration. 14. In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol, as read together with Article 34(6) of the Protocol and Rule 39(1) of the Rules, applications brought by individuals directly to the Court cannot be heard in the absence of the Declaration. 15. This application’s failure to fulfil the requirements of personal jurisdiction entails that the Court need not examine other aspects of its jurisdiction. 16. Based on the foregoing, the Court, dismisses this Application for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3 Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court of 1 September 2020. The Court’s judgment on the merits was delivered on 26 May 2017 while the judgment on reparations was delivered on 23 June 2022 – see https://www.african-court.org/cpmt/details-case/0062012. 4