VI. JURISDICTION 20. Article 3 of the Protocol provides as follows: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 21. In accordance with Rule 49(1) of the Rules “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ... in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules”. 22. The Court notes that there is no objection to its jurisdiction and nothing on the record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it is obligated to determine if it has jurisdiction to consider the Application. 23. With regard to its personal jurisdiction, the Court notes, as earlier stated in this judgment, that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol, and that, on 29 March 2010, it deposited the Declaration with the African Union Commission. However, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. In accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence, the withdrawal of the Declaration does not apply retroactively. It only takes effect one (1) year after the notice of such withdrawal has been deposited. In this case, the effective date was 22 November 2020.5 In view of the above, the Court holds that it has personal jurisdiction as the withdrawal does not affect the present Application which was filed on 25 July 2016. 24. As regards its material jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Applicant alleges violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter to which the Respondent State is a party. Therefore, the Court’s material jurisdiction is established. 5 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 37-39. 6