B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 32. The Court notes that no objection has been raised to its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding to consider the Application. 33. Having found that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court finds that it has: i. Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations were committed after the entry into force of the above-mentioned instruments, in relation to the Respondent State. ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State deposited its Declaration before the present Application was filed. Subsequently, on 25 March 2020, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. In this respect, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on cases filed before the deposition of the instrument of withdrawal or on new cases filed before it comes into effect. Given that the withdrawal of the Declaration takes effect one year after the deposition of the instrument of withdrawal, in this case, on 26 March 2021, it does not have any effect on the present Application, which was filed on 25 March 2020. iii. Territorial jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations were perpetrated in the territory of the Respondent State 34. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the present Application. 10