which came into force on the same date, as well as from its Rules adopted on 3rd June 2002. (see §76) 131. Therefore, the 2005 Additional Protocol, while conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in matters of human rights, did not establish anything as to the possibility of its retroactive application. 132. Thus, following the principle of non-retroactivity of the Treaties, arising from article 28 of the VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES mentioned above, the jurisdiction of this Court in matters of human rights is limited to facts that occurred after January 19, 2005, the date of its provisional entry into force. 133. On the other hand, the notion of “instantaneous” or “continuous” acts of violations is established in Article 14 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted in 2001, which provides that: “(1)The violation of an obligation by an act of a State that is not continuous occurs at the time the act is performed, even if its effects persist. (2). The violation of an international obligation by an act of a State that is continuous in nature extends for the entire period during which the act continues and remains in violation of the international obligation. (3). The violation of an international obligation requiring the state to prevent a certain event will take place at the moment that event begins and extends throughout the period during which the event continues and remains in contravention of that obligation.” 134. As the African Court found, in the case cited above, “in its commentary on this Article, the Commission stated that an act does not have a continuing character merely because its effects or consequences extend in time. It must be wrongful act as such which continues.” (See §66). 135. Therefore, in light of these observations, to determine its ratione temporis jurisdiction, it is for the Court to examine the alleged violations 24