Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY documents pertaining to the proceedings; and that the Respondent State had defaulted by failing to file its Response. In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Protocol), the Court observed that, it was obligated to preliminarily, determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the Application. 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 which allows individuals to file applications against the Respondent State as per 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 withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020, which is after the Application had been filed at the Court, on 19 August 2019. The Court held that it had material jurisdiction because the Applicant had alleged violations of his rights, protected under Articles 4, 5, 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 7(1) of the Charter. Furthermore, the Court held that it had temporal jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred after the Respondent State had become a party to the Protocol. Lastly, it found that it had territorial jurisdiction, given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of the Respondent State. The Court observed that pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, the content of which is restated in Rule 50(1) of the Rules, it must rule on the admissibility of the cases brought before it. Consequently, the Court held that, pursuant to Article 50(2) of the Rules, the Application had met the following conditions of admissibility. The Applicant had been identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. It also held that the allegations by the Applicant sought to protect his rights in line with Article 3(h) of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and thus the Application complied with Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. Furthermore, the Court found that the language used in the Application was not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent 2