the Rules,8 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding with the determination of the Application. 27. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls as indicated in paragraph 2 of this judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 28. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect twelve (12) months after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.9 This Application having been filed before the said date is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 29. Regarding temporal jurisdiction, the Court observes that the alleged violations took place after the ratification of the Charter, the Protocol and the depositing of the Declaration by the Respondent State. 30. As regards its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant happened within the territory of the Respondent State. In the circumstances, the Court holds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 31. In the light of all the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. 8 9 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 35- 39. 9