B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 24. The Court notes that other aspects of its jurisdiction are not contested by the Parties and nothing on the record indicates that it lacks jurisdiction. Nonetheless, and in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met. 25. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls that, and as stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, the Respondent State is a party to the Charter and has deposited the Declaration. The Court further recalls that the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 21 November 2019. The Court reiterates that such withdrawal does not apply retroactively and has no bearing on matters pending before the Court prior to the filing of the instrument withdrawing the Declaration or new cases filed before the withdrawal took effect, being a period of one (1) year after the deposit of the notice of withdrawal; that is, 22 November 2020. This Application having been filed on 28 July 2016, which was before the Respondent State deposited its instrument of withdrawal of the Article 34(6) Declaration, is thus not affected by the withdrawal. The Court’s personal jurisdiction is therefore established. 26. Concerning its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the final domestic determination that the Applicants invoke, as the basis of their alleged violations, is the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 16 September 2015. This decision, the Court further notes, was delivered after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter, and the Protocol. The Court, therefore, has temporal jurisdiction in this Application. 27. As regards its territorial jurisdiction, the Court holds that it has territorial jurisdiction as all the alleged violations are said to have occurred in the territory of the Respondent State. 8