000415 20. Having conducted a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction, and noting that nothing on file indicates that it does not have jurisdiction, the Court therefore holds that: i. it has personal jurisdiction, given that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and has deposited the declaration under Article 34(6) thereof, which enabled the Applicant to access the Court in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol. On the other hand, the Application was filed within the one-year period set by the Court for the withdrawal of the declaration by the Respondent State to take effect: ii. it has material jurisdiction as it alleges the violation of Articles 1 and 14 of the Charter; Article 2(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Declaration Cultural of Human Rights Rights (ICESC); (UDHR), Article 17(2) of the all instruments Universal ratified by the Respondent State, of which the Court is endowed with the power to interpret and apply, as per Article 3 of the Protocol; iii. it has temporal jurisdiction given that the alleged violations are continuous in nature since the Applicant’s car remains confiscated‘: iv. _ it has territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred in the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent State. 21. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider the instant application. Vi. ADMISSIBILITY 22. Pursuant to 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”. In accordance with 39(1) of “ See Application No. 013/2011. Ruling of 21/06/2013 (Preliminary objeetifris), Beneficiaries of lat Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema Alias Ablassé, Ernes go; Blajs€ Ilboudo & The Burkinabé lt