the Protocol and these Rules.” 21. Based on the above provisions, the Court must, in each Application, conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and rule on objections thereto, if any. 22. The Court recalls that the Respondent State did not file any submissions. Nonetheless, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met. To this end, the Court notes that it has: i. Material jurisdiction, as the Applicants allege violation of freedoms of opinion and expression protected under Article 19 of the UDHR3 read jointly with Article 9 of the Charter. ii. Personal jurisdiction, as the Respondent State is a party to the Charter and Protocol and deposited the Declaration. On 25 March 2020, the Respondent State deposited an instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration. In this regard, as per the Court’s jurisprudence the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no effect either on cases pending before the Court at the time of the said withdrawal, or on new applications filed before the withdrawal took effect one (1) year after it was deposited, in this case, on 26 March 2021. This Application having been filed on 22 March 2021, that is, before the withdrawal of the Declaration took effect, is not affected by the said withdrawal. The Respondent State stated its commitment to the UDHR in the preamble to its Constitution. See, Law No. 90-32 of 11 December 1990 establishing the Constitution of the Republic of Benin. On the general legal status of the UDHR, See, Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (22 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 248, § 76; Robert John Penessis v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 593, § 85. 3 6