Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY jurisdiction is limited by the Protocol, it is empowered to determine applications which raise alleged violations of rights guaranteed by the Charter, the Protocol or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. Therefore, since the Applicants’ alleged violations of human rights protected by the Charter and other human rights instruments, the Court’s material jurisdiction was satisfied. Although the other aspects of the Court’s 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 in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol. The Court underscored that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of the said Declaration on 21 November 2019 did not affect this Application, as the Application was filed before the Court on 20 November 2020, while the withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020. With regard to temporal jurisdiction, the Court found that most of the alleged violations occurred in 2020, that is, after the Respondent State had ratified the Protocol. Moreover, the alleged violation as regards article 41(7) of the Respondent State’s Constitution of 1977 on the inability to challenge the result of presidential elections, is continuing as it still remains in the Constitution to date, and therefore, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction was satisfied. Lastly, the Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred in the Respondent State’s territory which is a party to the Charter and the Protocol. The Court then held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court then considered, in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), whether the Application was admissible. In this regard, the Respondent State raised three objections to the admissibility of the Application. First, the Respondent State argued that the Application was based exclusively on news disseminated by the mass media, and therefore did