- 12and the Covenant (4 April 1999) as well as the optional declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to hear Applications from individuals or non-governmental organizations (25 January 2004). The alleged violation of the Applicant's right to freedom of expression stems 39. from the latter's conviction by the Ouagadougou High Court and the fact that the conviction was upheld on 10 May 2013 by the Ouagadougou Court of Appeal. Hence, the Court notes that the alleged violation of the Applicant's right to 40. freedom of expression is likely to have occurred on 10 May 2013 or well after the Respondent State had become Party to the Charter and the Covenant, and had made the declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction to receive Applications from individuals or non-governmental organizations. Consequently, the Court finds that it has the ratione temporis jurisdiction to hear the allegation of violation of the right to freedom of expression raised in this case. The Court finally notes in regard to its ratione loci jurisdiction that this is an 41. issue not disputed by the Respondent State; further, it is of the opinion that the ratione loci jurisdiction cannot be disputed as the alleged violations occurred in the territory of the Respondent State. It therefore follows from the above considerations that the Court has jurisdiction 42. to consider the human rights violation alleged by the Applicant. IV. Admissibility of the Application 43. The Respondent State raises objections based on Rule 40 of the Rules, which reiterates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter. However, it also raises an objection relating to the failure to identify the Respondent State as well as the capacity of the Applicant as a journalist. ~~--- 4 12