Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY in its decision, rejected the objection, holding that it had material jurisdiction because the Applicants had alleged violations of their rights, protected under Articles 4, 5, 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 7(1) of the Charter. Although other aspects of jurisdiction were not contested by the Respondent State, the Court examined them as required by its Rules. In this regard, the Court found that it had personal jurisdiction since, on 29 March 2010, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration provided for under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. This Declaration allows individuals to file applications against the Respondent State as per Article 5(3) of the Protocol. The Court underscored that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its Declaration on 21 November 2019 did not affect the Consolidated Applications, as the withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020, while the Applications were filed at the Court on 21 August 2019. Furthermore, the Court held that it had temporal jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol. Lastly, it found that it had territorial jurisdiction, given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of the Respondent State. The Court then determined whether the Application was admissible as provided for under Article 6(2) of the Protocol and Article 56 of the Charter, the latter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules. In this regard, the Respondent State raised an objection to the admissibility of the application in relation to the non-exhaustion of local remedies by the Applicants. In its decision, the Court held that the Applicants had appealed the decision of the High Court convicting them of murder to the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 4 April 2019, dismissing the Applicants’ appeal. Accordingly, the Applicants had, therefore, exhausted local remedies in compliance with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 2