satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met before proceeding to examine the Application. 22. Having noted that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction, the Court considers that it has: i. material jurisdiction, as the Applicant alleges violation of the rights protected by the Charter, the UDHR and the ICCPR8, international human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party. ii. personal jurisdiction, as the Respondent State deposited the Declaration. On 29 April 2020, the Respondent State deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission an instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration. The Court has ruled that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no bearing on pending cases, or on new cases filed one (1) year before the relevant instrument takes effect, in the present case, on 30 April 2021.9 The withdrawal therefore has no bearing on the present Application, which was filed on 22 July 2019. iii. Temporal jurisdiction, as the alleged violations were committed after the Respondent State became a Party to the Protocol. iv. Territorial jurisdiction, as the facts of the case occurred in the territory of the Respondent State. 23. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the present Application. 8 The Respondent State became a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 26 March 1992. 9 Suy Bi Gohoré Émile and others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (merits and reparations) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 406, § 2. 8