000{0? 29. The Respondent State did not make any submissions regarding the Court's jurisdiction to hear this case. 30. Notwithstanding the absence of any objection to the Court's jurisdiction by the Respondent State, the Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction before it proceeds. 31. ln this Application, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction given that the Application invokes violations of human rights protected under the Charter and other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State; il personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and has deposited the declaration prescribed under Article 34(6) thereof, allowing individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol; ilt temporal jurisdiction since the alleged violations are continuous, given that the Applicant remains sentenced on the basis of what he considers as not being in line with the provisions of the Charter and other human rights instruments;5 IV territorial jurisdiction because the alleged violations took place in the Respondent State's territory and the Respondent State is a State Party to the Protocol. 32 ln view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. 5 Applicatlon No. 013/201 1. Judgment ot 2110612013 (Merits), Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso, $$ 73-74 (hereinafter referred lo as"Notbert Zongo v Burkina Faso'). 10