party on 11 June 1976, the Court has jurisdiction to examine the Applicant's
allegation based on the above mentioned provision of the Charter.
C. Other aspects of jurisdiction
39. Considering that there is no indication on the record that it is not competent with
respect to other aspects of jurisdiction, the Court holds that:
i. It has personal jurisdiction given that, as ascertained earlier, the Respondent
State became a party to the Protocol and deposited the required declaration.
ii. It has temporal jurisdiction as the alleged violations occurred from 2010 and
were continuing at the time the Application was filed in 2015, which is atter the
Respondent State became a party to the Protocol and deposited the declaration.
iii. It has territorial jurisdiction given that the alleged facts occurred within the
territory of the Respondent State.
40.ln light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application.
VI.
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
41. Pursuant to Rule 39{ 1) of the Rules, "the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination
of ... the admissibility of the Application in accordance with Articles 50 and 56 of the Charter,
and 40 of these Rules".
42. Rule 40 of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the
Charter, provides as follows:
"Pursuant to the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter to which Article 6(2) of the Protocol
refers, Applications to the Court shall comply with the folloWing conditions:
1. Disclose the identity of the Applicant notwithstanding the laller's request for
anonymity;
2. Comply with the Constitutive Act of the Union and the Charter;
3. Not contain any disparaging or insulting language;
4. Not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media;
12