20. In the instant case, the Respondent State raises two objections to jurisdiction, namely, personal jurisdiction and temporal jurisdiction. The Court will rule on the two objections before considering other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to personal jurisdiction 21. The Respondent State contends that, in principle, the adverse party is committed to the proceedings only after the Application has been notified to it. It is the Respondent State’s contention that it was served the present Application on 11 April 2022, more than eleven (11) months after the effective date of withdrawal of its Declaration by virtue of which it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court to receive applications from individuals and NGOs having observer status with the Commission. The Respondent State asserts that, in these circumstances, it is not involved in the present proceedings and prays the Court to find that it does not have personal jurisdiction to hear this Application. 22. The Applicants did not respond to this objection. *** 23. The Court notes that it has ruled that the withdrawal of the Declaration deposited by the Respondent State under Article 34(6) of the Protocol has no bearing on matters pending before it and on new cases filed prior to the effective date of the withdrawal, which is one year after its filing, that is, on 30 April 2021.3 24. The Court recalls that, as it has also held, “the time-limit of 30 April 2021 only relates to the date of filing of an application before it” and therefore its personal jurisdiction is established whenever an application was filed at its 3 Suy Bi Gohore and 3 Others v. Côte d'Ivoire, supra, 67. 7