its Declaration. In this regard, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no bearing on cases pending before it took effect. Given that the present consolidated Applications were already pending before the withdrawal, the latter has no bearing thereon.8 ii. Temporal jurisdiction insofar as the violations alleged in the consolidated Applications occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. iii. Territorial jurisdiction insofar as the violations alleged in the consolidated Applications occurred within the Respondent State’s territory. 36. Accordingly, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to examine the present consolidated Applications. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 37. In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Protocol “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter”. 38. Pursuant to Rule 50(1) of the Rules, “[t]he Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an Application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and these Rules.” 39. According to Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which essentially restates Article 56 of the Charter: 8 Cheusi v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 35-39. 11