30. Finally, with regard to the Respondent State’s objection on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction in the present case to examine claims for benefits and indemnities relating to employment contracts, the Court recalls that it has jurisdiction under Article 27(1) of the Protocol to grant any reparation once a violation has been found. As this issue relates to the merits of the case, the Court considers that it is premature to examine it at this stage, and, therefore, reserves the same for merits and reparations. 31. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 32. The Court observes that no objection has been raised to its temporal, personal or territorial jurisdiction. It therefore holds that it has: i. Temporal jurisdiction, insofar as the facts of the case occurred after the State became a Party to the Protocol. ii. Personal jurisdiction, insofar as the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration provided for in Article 36(4) of the Protocol which allows the Applicant to seise the Court directly. iii. Territorial jurisdiction insofar as the alleged violations occurred on the territory of the Respondent State. 33. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application. 8