ongoing. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant is serving a lawful sentence for the commission of an offence as provided by statute. * 33. The Applicant did not make any submissions on this point. *** 34. In respect of its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant arose after the Respondent State became a Party to the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, the Court observes that the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers an unfair process. Therefore, it holds that the alleged violations can be considered to be continuing in nature.8 35. For these reasons, the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application and consequently dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this point. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 36. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to its personal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding. 37. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in paragraph 2 of this judgment that, on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, an instrument withdrawing its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the 8 Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabe des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 10