The Court's Ruling on the Preliminary points regarding lack of Jurisdiction 32.As said earlier, the Respondent's preliminary objection against the Court's jurisdiction is that whereas the Applicant's alleged violation of his rights took place in 1999, the Protocol came into operation in respect of the Respondent only after the Respondent ratified it on 9 October, 2008. The Court notes that the Charter came into operation on 21 October, 1986 and the Respondent ratified the Charter in 1989. It is the view of the Court, therefore, that at the time of the alleged violation of the Applicant's rights in 1999, the Charter was already binding on the Respondent; the latter was under the duty to protect the Applicant's rights alleged to have been violated. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Applicant's case is that the alleged violation of his rights under Articles 7 and 15 is continuing. For the above reasons, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent cannot succeed. The Court's Ruling on the Preliminary point relating to Admrissibility 33. Respondent's argument on this point is that the application is not admissible as it is pending before the Commission. This Court does, however, find that the Applicant did formally withdraw his communication from the Commission before lodging his application in March 2011. The Applicant submitted to this Court two copies of his letters to the Commission, dated 7 and 17 February 2011 . withdrawing his communication. The Commission also confirmed to the Court, in its letter of 29 March 2011, that the Applicant had indeed withdrawn the matter before it. The matter is th (16} -. )/fi, ~I ~ 0? @_,