23. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 24. The Court notes that no objection has been raised to its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. 25. Having noted that nothing on record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction in respect of these aspects: i. The Court observes, as regards personal jurisdiction, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, that on 25 March 2020, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration. In this regard, the Court recalls its jurisprudence that the withdrawal by the Respondent State of its Declaration has no retroactive effect, nor does it affect cases pending at the time of the said withdrawal or new cases brought before it prior to its entry into force 12 months after its deposition, that is, on 26 March 2021. As the Application was filed on 4 August 2020, that is, before the withdrawal of the Declaration took effect, it is not affected by the said withdrawal. Consequently, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction. ii. The Court further notes, as regards temporal jurisdiction, that all the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and to the Protocol as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Judgment. Consequently, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction in the instant Application. iii. Finally, as regards territorial jurisdiction, the Court observes that the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred in the territory of the 7