of the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned is established.6 28. In the instant case, the Applicants allege the violation of rights guaranteed under the Charter to which the Respondent State is a party. The Court is therefore empowered to make the appropriate reparation, including issuing an order for release, should the circumstances so require. 29. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and consequently finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. B. Objection to temporal jurisdiction 30. The Respondent State is contesting the temporal jurisdiction of the Court and submits that the alleged violations raised by the Applicants are not ongoing. It avers that the Applicants are serving a lawful sentence for the commission of an offence as provided by statute. 31. The Applicants did not address this objection. *** 32. The Court recalls that, when it comes to temporal jurisdiction, the relevant date, in relation to the Respondent State, is that of entry into force of the Protocol, which is on 10 February 2006.7 33. The Court notes that the alleged violations in the present Application are based on the alleged denial of the right to a fair trial in the domestic courts, Reuben Juma and Gawani Nkende v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Consolidated Applications Nos. 015/2017 and 011/2018, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 32. 7 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, § 22; Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (judgment), § 29 and Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 25. 6 8