B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 22. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding its personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it must satisfy itself that these aspects have been met. 23. The Court notes, with respect to its personal jurisdiction that, as earlier stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and on 29 March 2010, it deposited with the African Union Commission, the Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 24. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that, the withdrawal of a Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one (1) year after the date of deposit of the notice of such withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020.7 This Application having been filed before the Respondent State’s withdrawal came into effect, is thus not affected by it. Consequently, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction. 25. With regard to temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the alleged violations happened between 2012 and 2016. Therefore, the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter, on 21 October 1986, the Protocol on 10 February 2006 and had deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March 2010. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction. 26. The Court also notes that it has territorial jurisdiction insofar as the alleged violations occurred in the Respondent State’s territory. 27. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application. 7 Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) supra, §§ 37-39. 7