Original: French 54. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Charter by the Respondent. As such, the matter submitted by the Applicant falls within the material jurisdiction of the Court, and the issue at stake actually concerns the application of the relevant provisions of the Charter to which Libya is a Party. C. TEMPORAL JURISDICTION 55. As regards jurisdiction ratione temporis , the Court notes that, in the instant case, the relevant dates to be considered are those of the entry into force of the Charter with respect to the Respondent (26 March 1987) and the Protocol (8 December 2003). 56. The Court notes that, according to the Application , the alleged violation of the Charter occurred for the first time in 2011 and has continued to this day. 57. Consequently, and since the purported facts occurred after the entry into force of the Protocol , the Court finds that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine the alleged violation of the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial raised in this case. D. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION 58. Lastly, the Court notes that with regard to territorial jurisdiction (ratione loci), there is no shadow of doubt that the facts of the case occurred in the territory under the authority of Libya. /r ) Jvr;; ~ ~ I ~I ( -tf_ ~ ~ Jr .-P 22 -\- :::> c:-::: () . ~- ~