With regard to the first limb of the objection, the Court recalled that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to determine allegations concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter and other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. The Court recalled that in the instant matter, the Applicant alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 7(a), 7(c) and 7(d) of the Charter, which is an instrument that the Respondent State has ratified. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction in this respect. With regard to the second limb of the objection, that the Court lacked jurisdiction to order the Applicant’s release from prison, it recalled that Article 27(1) of the Protocol enables it to make appropriate orders to remedy a violation, including the release of an applicant from prison, provided that the alleged violation has been established. The Court therefore, dismissed the Respondent State’s objection regarding this aspect and held that it had material jurisdiction to hear this Application. Although other aspects of its jurisdiction were not challenged by the Respondent State, the Court nevertheless examined them pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules of Court (the Rules). Accordingly, the Court found that it had personal jurisdiction since, on 29 March 2010, the Respondent State deposited the Declaration provided for under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, which allows individuals to file Applications against it in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Protocol. The Court underscored that the Respondent State’s withdrawal of the said Declaration, on 21 November 2019, did not affect this Application as the withdrawal took effect on 22 November 2020, which was after this Application had been filed, on 22 March 2019. 2