Zz 4. The jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Court has to be assessed exclusively in relation to the facts which led to the alleged violation; the subsequent failure of the appeals filed in the domestic courts of the Respondent State in order to redress the violation cannot bring this violation under the ambit of the temporal jurisdiction of the Court. 5. This was underscored as follows by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in a judgment delivered on 8 March 2006: “An applicant who considers that a State has violated his rights guaranteed under the Convention is usually expected to have resort first to the means of redress available to him under domestic law. If domestic remedies prove unsuccessful and the applicant subsequently applies to the Court, a possible violation of his rights under the Convention will not be caused by the refusal to remedy the interference, but by the interference itself, it being understood that this may be in the form of a court judgment”,! 6. To establish the temporal jurisdiction of the Court in this matter, it is therefore necessary to look back in time to identify what is the Respondent State’s act which led to the alleged violation of its international obligations under the Charter or another legal instrument to which it is a party. 7. When, as in the instant case, the facts in question took place for some before and for others after the critical date (ie. 9 March 2010), it is important to determine whether the alleged violation stems from a fact which occurred prior to this date or one which took place after this date. On that score, it is important to bear in mind the traditional distinction between the acts of State having an «instantaneous character»’and those having a «continuous character».* "Paragraph 78 of the Judgment in the case concerning Blecic vy. Croatia, Application No, 59532/00. * «The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue», Paragraph | of Article 14 («Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation») of the «Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission on 9 August 2001», Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Volume II (Part Two), Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, UN Doc, A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2), p. 27. * «The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation», Paragraph 2 of the same article 14, The Court may also consider facts which occurred before the entry into force of the optional declaration with regard to a Respondent State which is of the view that they are at the origin of a continuous situation which extended beyond that date (see for example the considerations of the Court on this issue in Paragraphs 62 to 83 of its Judgment on the admissibility of Application No. 013/2011, Beneficiaries of late Nobert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest