00014e 21.fhe Court notes that the instant Application raises allegations of human rights violations protected under Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter and by considering them in light of international instruments, it does not arrogate to itself the status of an appellate court or court of first instance. Accordingly, the Respondent State's objection in this regard is dismissed. The court will not discuss the limits of its jurisdiction here contrary to the Respondent State's submission. The terms of Article 3 of the Protocol, reproduced by Rule 26 of the Rules, amply explain the extent of the Court's jurisdiction. 22. ln light of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has materiat jurisdiction B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 23.The Court notes that the personal, temporal and territorial aspects of its jurisdiction are not disputed by the Respondent State and that nothing on the record indicates that the Court lacks such jurisdiction. The Court accordingly holds that: (i) It has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has made the Declaration prescribed under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, which enabled the Applicant to file this Application directly before this Court, pursuant to Article 5 (3) of the Protocol; (ii) that it has temporaljurisdiction on the basis that the alleged violations are continuous in nature, in that the Applicants remain convicted and are serving a sentence of thirty (30) years'imprisonment on grounds which they consider are wrong and indefensible.a a See Application No. 013i201'1. Ruling ot 21tQ612013 (Preliminary Objections), Beneficiaies of the Late Norbeft Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema a/las Ab,asse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise tlboudo and the Butuinabe Movement on Human and Peoples'Rights v. Burkina Faso, (hereinafter referred to as, "Zongo and Others judgment (Preliminary Objections)"), S S 71 - 77. 8 @'