dates regarding its ratione temporis jurisdiction are those of the entry into force of the Charter (21 October 1986), the Protocol (25 January 2004) as well as that of the deposit at the Secretariat of the Organization of African Unity by Burkina Faso of the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to receive Applications from individuals, (28 July 1998).” (See §62) and it made a clear distinction between “instantaneous” and “continuous” acts of violation and established that “the Application of the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties contained in Article 281 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 is not contested by the parties. The issue here is to know whether the different violations alleged by the Applicants would, if proven, constitute instantaneous or continuous violations of the international obligations of Burkina Faso in the area of human rights.” (See §63) 129. Also in the case law of this Honorable Court, there are decisions that point towards the acceptance of the non-retroactive application of the 2005 Protocol and the assumption of its jurisdiction over facts that generate a situation of continuous and prevailing violation on the date of entry into force of the said Additional Protocol. (See ALHAJ HAMMANI TIDJANI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 4 OTHERS ECW/CCJ/APP/01/06, Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/07 (CCJLR 20042009 p…) and SIRIKU ALADE V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA - ECW/CCJ/APP/05/11, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/12; CCJ Law Report, 2012, p. 189). 130. More recently, the Court, in the case EVARISTUS DENNIS EGBEBU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC Of NIGERIA, Case ECW/CCJ/APP/32/20, Judgment ECW/JUD/14/21 - Unreported, ruled that “…its jurisdiction to examine human rights violation cases in ECOWAS Member States from the 2005 Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01 /05 of 19th January 2005, 23