84.The onlypoint on which the Court’s jurisdiction is challenged is based on the fact that the conduct complained of, namely,the barring of independent candidates, occurred before the Protocol came into operation. This argument cannot be upheld.The rights allegedto be violated are protected by the Charter. By the time of the alleged violation, the Respondent had already ratified the Charter and was therefore bound by it, The Charter was operational, and there was therefore already a duty on the Respondent as at the time of the alleged violation to protect those rights. At the time the Protocol was ratified by the Respondentand when it came into operation in respect of the Respondent, the alleged violation was continuing and is still continuing: independent candidates are still not allowed to stand for the position of President or to contest Parliamentary and Local Government elections. Furthermore, the alleged violations continued beyond the time the Respondent made the declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol.