jurisdiction of the Court to receive Applications from individuals and NGOs, with respect to the Respondent. s 65 . The Court notes that the Respondent became a Party to the Charter on 10 February 1992 and a Party to the Protocol on 4 February 2004. The Court also notes that, though the evictions by the Respondent leading to the alleged violations began before the aforementioned dates, these evictions are continuing. In this regard, the Court notes in particular, the threats of eviction issued in 2005 and the notice to vacate the South Western Mau Forest Reserve issued on 26 October 2009 by the Director of Kenya Forestry Service. It is the Court's view that the Respondent's alleged violations of its international obligations under the Charter are continuing, and as such, the matter falls within the temporal jurisdiction of the Court. 66. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to hear the Application. D. Territorial jurisdiction 67. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court has not been challenged by the Respondent, however it should be stated that since the alleged violations occurred within the territory of the Respondent, a Member State of the African Union that has ratified the Protocol, the Court has territorial jurisdiction in this regard. 68. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to examine this Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 69. The Respondent raised two sets of objections to the admissibility of the Application. The first set deals with objections relating to the preliminary procedures before the African Commission and the Court, while the second set deals with objections based 5 See The Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise 1/boudo and the Burkinabe Movement on Human and Peoples' Rights v Burl<ina Faso (hereinafter referred to as Norbert Zongo Case) (Ruling on Preliminary Objections) 21 June 2013 paragraphs 61 to 64.