27. In light of all the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 28. The Court notes that the Parties do not contest its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction and nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met. 29. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect 12 months after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited, in this case, on 22 November 2020.12 This Application having been filed before the said date is thus not affected by the withdrawal. Consequently, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction. 30. Regarding its temporal jurisdiction, the Court observes that the alleged violations are based on proceedings arising from the decisions of the domestic courts that is: District Court judgment of 26 June 2015; High Court judgment of 13 April 2016 and Court of Appeal judgment of 15 June 2016, after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol. Furthermore, the Applicant remains incarcerated, serving a 30-year sentence that he claims resulted from an unfair trial.13 Consequently, the Court holds that the alleged violations are continuing in nature, thus conferring it with temporal jurisdiction to scrutinize the related claims.14 12 Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 37-39. Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 84; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, § 65; Ivan v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 29(ii). 14 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 68; and Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017, Judgment of 1 December 2022, § 18. 13 9