0 0062 ? protected by the Charter or any other international human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.2 22. ln the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant enumerates various grievances against the application of the Civil Procedure Act as submitted by the Respondent State. Nevertheless, he also alleges that it took nine years in the High Court for his case to be determined even though a total of only three witnesses testified. The Court holds that this alleged violation concerns the field of application of the provisions of Article 7(1Xd) of the Charter in respect of the "right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal". 23. Consequently, the Court holds that its material jurisdiction is established and dismisses the Respondent State's objection. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 24.The Court notes that its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction have not been contested by the Respondent State, and that nothing on record indicates that it lacks such jurisdiction. The Court therefore 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) thereof, which enabled the Applicant to file this Application pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Protocol. 2 See: Application No. 005/2013. Judgment ot 2011112015 (Merits), Alex Thomas v. lJnited Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits)), S 45; Application No. 001i2012. Ruling of 2810312014 (Admissibility), Frank David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Frank Omary v Tanzania (Admissibility)"), S 115; Application No. 003/2012. Ruling of 2810312014 (Admissibility), Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Peter Chacha v Tanzania (Admissibility)"), S 114; Application No. 20/20'16. Judgment of 21109/2018 (Merits and Reparations), Anaclet Paulo v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter refered to as "Anaclet Paulo v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)"), $ 25; Application No. 001/2015. Judgment of 711212018 (Merits and Reparations), Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Armand G Tanzania (Merits and Reparations)), $ 31; Application No. 024115. Judgment ot 711212018 Me Reparations), Werema Wangoko v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Were v Tanzania (Merits and Reparation)"), $ 29. 8 Y\^\\q