0035069 46.From the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has material jurisdiction over this matter. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 47. The Court contention notes that its personal, between the Parties and temporal nothing and territorial jurisdiction on file indicates that it does are not in not have jurisdiction. Consequently, it holds that: i. It has personal jurisdiction given that the Respondent Protocol and has filed the Declaration Protocol to allow individuals and prescribed Non-Governmental State is a Party to the under Article 34 (6) of the Organisations to institute cases directly before it; ii. It has temporal jurisdiction given that the alleged violations happened between 14 June 2013 and 29 July 2014, after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol and deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, accepting applications from individuals. ili. It has territorial jurisdiction given that the alleged violations occurred in the territory of the Respondent State. 48. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear this case. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 49. In terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter’. Pursuant to Rule 39 (1) of the Rules, “The Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of ... the admissibility of the Application in accordance with Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of these Rules’.