29. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in paragraph 2 of this judgment that, on 21 November 2019, the Respondent State deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, an instrument withdrawing its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court further recalls that, as it has previously held, the withdrawal of a Declaration does not have any retroactive effect and also has no bearing on matters pending prior to the filing of the instrument withdrawing the Declaration, or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect as is the case of the present Application.8 In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to examine this Application. 30. In respect of its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred after the Respondent State became a Party to the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, the alleged violations are continuing in nature since the Applicant remains convicted on the basis of what he considers an unfair process.9 Given the preceding, the Court holds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine this Application. 31. As for its territorial jurisdiction, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred within the territory of the Respondent State, which is a state party to the Protocol. In the circumstances, the Court holds that it has territorial jurisdiction. 32. In light of the above, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to determine the present Application. 8 Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), §§ 35-39; Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. United Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 9 See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 64, 65; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (25 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, §§ 71-77, 83. 8