instruments ratified by the Respondent State, namely, the Charter, the ICCPR and the UDHR. *** 20. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction over “all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the [...] Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned”. 21. The Court recalls its settled jurisprudence that for it to assume material jurisdiction, it is sufficient that the Applicant alleges violation of human rights protected under the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.5 22. The Court notes that, in the present case, the Applicant alleges violation of the right to a fair trial, protected by Article 7 of the Charter and Article 2(3) of the ICCPR; and of the right to property, protected by Article 14 of the Charter, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Article 17 of the UDHR. 23. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection based on material jurisdiction and declares that it has jurisdiction in this respect. B. Other jurisdiction requirements 24. The Court notes that no objection has been raised to its personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it must ensure that its jurisdiction is established in these areas. To this end, the Court notes that it has : i. Personal jurisdiction insofar as, as indicated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, the Respondent State deposited the instrument of withdrawal of the Declaration on 25 March 2020. In this regard, the 5 Franck David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 358, § 74; Peter Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, § 118. 9