was filed before the Respondent State deposited its instrument of withdrawal and is, therefore, not affected by the said withdrawal. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to examine the present Application. 26. Furthermore, the Court has temporal jurisdiction in respect of the Application insofar as the alleged violations were committed after the Respondent State became a party to the Charter and the Protocol. The alleged violations are also continuing since the Applicant remains convicted in spite of what he considers an unfair procedure.9 27. Finally, the Court considers that its territorial jurisdiction is also established since the alleged violations were committed in the territory of the Respondent State. 28. In light of the foregoing, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 29. Under 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”. 30. Pursuant to Rule 50(1) of the Rules, “the Court shall ascertain the admissibility of an Application filed before it in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter, Article 6 (2) of the Protocol and these Rules.” 31. Furthermore, Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, provides as follows: Applications filed before the Court shall comply with all of the following conditions: 9 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 77. 8