000829 30. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection that the Applicant is requesting the Court to act as an appellate court and as a court of first instance; and holds that it has materialjurisdiction to hear the matter. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 31 . The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorialjurisdiction has not been contested by the Respondent State; and nothing in the pleadings indicate that the court does not have jurisdiction. The court thus holds that: it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) i. thereof, which enabled the Applicant to access the Court in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol; ii. it has temporal jurisdiction in as much as the alleged violations are continuous in nature, since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers an unfair process; iii. 32. it has territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred in the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, namely, the Respondent State. ln view of the foregoing, the Court declares that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. VI. 33 ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ln terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, "the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the charter". 34- Pursuant to Rute 39(1) of its Rules, "the Court shall undertake a preliminary examination of (...) the admissibility of the Application in accordance with both Article 50 and Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules,,. 35 Rule 40 of the Rules, which in essence restates Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: >/'" Ia