The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 26.Furthermore, Article 39(1) of the Rules stipulates that: "The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction..." 27. After a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and having found that there is nothing on file indicating that it does not have jurisdiction in this case, the Court finds that it has: material jurisdiction, insofar as the Applicant alleges the violation of the rights protected by the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State, namely, the ICCPR and ICESCR to which the Respondent State is a party® as well as the UDHR.® ii. personal jurisdiction, insofar as, as stated above, the effective date of the withdrawal of the Declaration by the Respondent State is 1 March 2017.” iii. | temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the violations alleged in the Application were committed as from 13 April 2010, that is, after the entry into force of the Charter for the Respondent State (31 January 1992), the ICCPR ICESCR and (16 April 1975) and the Protocol (25 January 2004): and the said alleged violations have continued iv. _ territorial jurisdiction in as much to date. as the facts of the case and the alleged violations occurred in the territory of the Respondent State. 28.In view of foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. 5The Respondent State became a party to ICCPR and ICESCR on 16 April 1975. 8 See Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 248, § 76; Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 314, §33. 7 See paragraph 2 of this Judgment.