59. Therefore, considering the obligation to execute the Court’s judgments, which generally imposes a duty on States to remedy established human or peoples’ rights violations, the Court also holds that a violation of Article 30 of the Protocol is tantamount to a “violation of a human or peoples’ rights”, as referred to in Article 27(1) of the Protocol. 60. Accordingly, the Court holds that it is within its jurisdiction to find a violation of Article 30 of the Protocol, based on which the Court “shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation,” in accordance with Article 27(1) of the Protocol. 61. Through a combined reading of Articles 3, 27(1) and 30 of the Protocol, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction in a case or dispute submitted to it, to establish whether or not a State has complied with its judgment within the time stipulated, and make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, if necessary. 62. For the above reasons and considering that the instant Application constitutes a new dispute in relation to the matter of APDH v Céte D'Ivoire, based on new factual and legal circumstances, and considering that all the alleged violations concern human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party, the Court holds that it has material jurisdiction to examine the Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 63. The Court jurisdiction notes are that other aspects not in contention of its personal, between the Parties. temporal and territorial Nonetheless, it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in those aspects. 64. Concerning its personal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and deposited the Declaration on 23 July 2013. 65. The Court also notes that on 29 April 2020, the Respondent State deposited, with the African Union Commission, an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 15