B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 43. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding its personal, material or territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it must satisfy itself that conditions pertaining to these aspects of its jurisdiction have been met. 44. With regard to personal jurisdiction, the Court notes that in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol, the Applicants are NGOs with observer status before the Commission.9 The Respondent State on its part, as indicated in paragraph 2 of the present Judgment, became a party to the Charter on 21 October 1986, the Protocol on 10 February 2006, and on 29 March 2010, deposited the Declaration in accordance with Article 34(6) of the Protocol in which it accepted NGOs and individuals to file cases directly before this Court. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 45. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that, the withdrawal of a Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one year after the date of deposit of the notice of such withdrawal, in this case, on 22 November 2020.10 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. 46. In relation to material jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 3 of the Protocol, the Court has material jurisdiction in all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the states concerned. In the instant case, the Applicants allege violations of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Charter, Article 7 of the ICCPR and Articles 16 and 29 of the Children’s Charter to which the Respondent State is a party.11 9 See paras 1, 2 and 3 above of this Judgment. Ingabire v. Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 540 § 67, Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 37-39. 11 Ratified ICCPR on 11 June 1976; Ratified the Children’s Charter on 16 March 2003. 10 12