which occurred between 2000 and 2009. Furthermore, the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers as an unfair process. As such, while the alleged violations commenced before the entry into force of the Protocol in respect of the Respondent State, they continued thereafter.8 34. Given the preceding, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application. C. Other aspects of jurisdiction 35. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to its personal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules,9 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled before proceeding. 36. Having found that there is nothing on the record to indicate otherwise, the Court concludes that it has: i. Personal jurisdiction, in so far as the Respondent State is a party to the Charter, the Protocol and has deposited the Declaration. In this vein, the Court recalls its earlier position that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its Declaration on 25 March 2020 does not affect the instant Application, as the instrument of withdrawal was filed after the Application was submitted before the Court.10 ii. Territorial jurisdiction, given that the alleged violations are all said to have occurred within the territory of the Respondent State and this has not been contested. 8 Yassin Rashid Maige v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 018/2017, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), §§ 34 and 35; Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77. 9 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 10 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 38 and Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. United Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 9