The Court’s Ruling on the Preliminary points regarding lack of Jurisdiction 32.As said earlier, the Respondent's preliminary objection against the Court's jurisdiction is that whereas the Applicant's alleged violation of his rights took place in 1999, the Protocol came into Respondent only after the Respondent Court notes that the Charter came the Respondent ratified the operation respect of the ratified it on 9 October, 2008. into operation Charter in in 1989. on 21 October, It is the view The 1986 and of the Court, therefore, that at the time of the alleged violation of the Applicant's rights in 1999, the Charter was already binding on the Respondent; the latter was under the duty to protect the Applicant's rights alleged to have been violated. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Applicant's violation of his rights under Articles 7 and reasons, the preliminary objection case is that the alleged 15 is continuing. raised by the For the above Respondent cannot succeed, The Court’s Ruling on the Preliminary point relating to Admissibility 33.Respondent’s argument on this point is that the application is not admissible as it is pending before the Commission. This Court does, however, find that the Applicant did formally withdraw his communication from the Commission before this lodging Court February two 2011, his application in March copies letters of his withdrawing his 2011. to the The Applicant submitted Commission, communication. The dated 7 and Commission to 17 also confirmed to the Court, in its letter of 29 March 2011, that the Applicant had indeed withdrawn the matter before it. The [16] matter is therefore not pending