Constitution was adopted in 1977 but it has been amended several times over the years. Nevertheless it is clear that the Respondent State’s Constitution was enacted before the Respondent State became a party to both the Charter and the Protocol. Notably, article 41(7) remains a part of the Respondent State’s laws to date, long after the Respondent State became a party to both the Charter and the Protocol. 24.The Court finds, therefore, that the violations alleged by the Applicant, though commencing before the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol, continued after the Respondent State became a party to these two instruments. Given the foregoing, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction in the present matter. 25.With regard to territorial jurisdiction, the Court observes that the alleged violations are all said to have occurred within the territory of the Respondent State and this has not been contested. The Court, therefore, holds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 26.In light of all the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to examine the Application filed by the Applicant. Vi. ADMISSIBILITY 27.Pursuant to 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.” In accordance with Rule 39(1) of the Rules, “the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of ... the admissibility of the Application in accordance with Article... 56 of the Charter, and Rule 40 of the Rules.” 28. Rule 40 of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, provides that: