30.2 The second point raises the Court's lack of jurisdiction. Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because the Protocol came into operation only on 25 January 2004, whereas the Applicant's cause of action arose in 1999. The Respondent argues, in September October this respect, 2008, 2008. argument and The around that it deposited the Respondent the fact that ratified the Protocol instrument does not, Respondent only of ratification however, made also on 9 on 9 develop any the Article 34(6) declaration only recently; long after the cause of action had arisen. 31. Regarding the merits of the case: As far as the merits of the case are that the Applicant's concerned, been violated. the Respondent Regarding denies have the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Charter, the Respondent argues that the Applicant exercised national and Courts, rights was given a fair hearing. his right to go to the The Respondent says further that the Courts of Malawi did in fact lean backwards to assist the Applicant. As regards the alleged violation of Article 15 of the Charter, the Respondent argues that the Applicant was employed by the University under a contract, one of the terms of which was that the contract could be terminated payment by either party on jn fieu of notice. three months’ notice or a three months’ The Respondent therefore argues that, as the Supreme Court of Appeal has already ordered that the Applicant be paid for the three months, the alleged right has not been violated. The Respondent further argues, in this respect, that the Industrial Relations Court has found the dismissal to be fair. C \