protected under the Charter. Additionally, he avers that at the time this offence was committed, the Respondent State had already ratified the Charter on 9 March 1984 and was therefore bound by it. 32. The Applicant submits that the “violations are still ongoing and that he was tried, convicted and sentenced on a flawed charge.” He avers that when a charge upon which the accused person is charged is flawed in form or substance, then, the accused person is considered not to have been accorded a fair trial. Therefore, he is serving an unlawful sentence. *** 33. In respect of its temporal jurisdiction, the Court notes that the relevant dates, in relation to the Respondent State, are those of entry into force of the Charter and the Protocol as well as the date of depositing the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. 34. In the instant case, the Court notes that the violations alleged by the Applicant are based on the judgments of the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal rendered on 14 July 2004, 17 July 2006 and 1 June 2010, respectively, that is, after the Respondent State had ratified the Charter and the Protocol, and deposited the Declaration on 21 October 1986, 10 February 2006 and 29 March 2010 respectively. Furthermore, the alleged effects of the violations are continuing, as the Applicant remains convicted and is serving a five (5) year imprisonment sentence for the offence of burglary and thirty (30) years for the offence of armed robbery imposed upon him by the District Court of Nzega in Criminal Case No. 69 of 2004, on 14 July 2004, on the basis of what he considers an unfair trial.13 13 Hussein Ally Fundumu v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 016/2018, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), §§ 29-30; Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Center v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 84; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, § 65. 10