26. The Court notes that its personal,
temporal and territorial jurisdiction is not
contested by the Respondent State, and that nothing on record indicates that the
Court lacks jurisdiction. lt therefore holds:
that it has personal jurisdiction, given that the Respondent state is a
Party to the Protoco! and has deposited the Declaration prescribed under
Article 34 (6) allowing individuals to bring applications direcfly to the
Court, pursuant to Article 5 (3) of the Protocol (supra, paragraph 2);
that it has temporaljurisdiction insofar as the alleged violations are of a
continuing nature, since the Applicant is stil! convicted for what he
considers to be defectsa;
that it has territorial jurisdiction insofar as the facts occurred in the
territory of the Respondent state, a state party to the protocol.
27.
ln light of the foregoing considerations, the Court holds in conclusion that it has
jurisdiction to hear the case.
VI.
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
28.
ln terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, "The Court shall rule on the admissibility of
cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter".
29.
Pursuantto Rule 39(1) of the Rules, "The Court shallconduct preliminary examination
of ... the admissibility of theApplication in accordancewith Article... 56 of the Charter
and Rule 40 of these Rules".
30.
Rule 40 of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of
the Charter, provides as follows:
"Pursuant to the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter to which Article 6(2) of the
Protocol refers, Applications to the Court shall comply with the following conditions:
No. 01112013, Ruling of 21t06t2013, (Preliminary Objections), Beneficiaries of the tate
Zongo and Others v.
Faso (Norbert Zongo v Burkina Faso Ruling), paras. 71 to TZ
4
8
I