B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 31. The Court notes that no objection has been raised to its personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. However, in accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it must ascertain that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled. 32. As regards personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls that on 25 March 2020, as indicated in paragraph 2 above, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration. 33. In this regard, the Court reiterates its position that the withdrawal of the Declaration has no retroactive effect and has no bearing on cases filed before the deposit of the instrument of withdrawal or on new cases filed before it came into effect on 26 March 2021. As the present Application was filed on 19 November 2019, that is, prior to the withdrawal of the Declaration, the said withdrawal has no bearing on it. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to hear the Application. 34. As regards temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that all the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and deposited the Declaration. Consequently, the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction in the present case. 35. As regards territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant took place in the territory of the Respondent State. It, therefore, finds that its territorial jurisdiction is established. 36. Accordingly, the Court considers that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application. 10