ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State is a Party to the Charter, the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. The Court recalls, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that on 25 March 2020, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration. In this regard, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on cases pending at the time of the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal, or on new cases brought before it prior to the said effective date of the withdrawal. As the said withdrawal of the Declaration took effect one year after the deposit of the instrument relating thereto, that is, on 26 March 2021, it has no effect on the present Application, which was filed on 25 March 2021. iii. Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the alleged violations were committed after the entry into force of the above-mentioned instruments, with regard to the Respondent State. iv. Territorial jurisdiction, insofar as the facts of the matter and the alleged violations took place on the territory of the Respondent State. 19. Consequently, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the present Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 20. Under Article 6(2) of the Protocol: “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of applications having regard to the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter”. 21. Rule 50(1) of the Rules of Court provides: “The Court shall proceed to an examination of admissibility [...] in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter and Article 6(2) of the Protocol and the [...] Rules of Court”. 7