64. Considering the foregoing, the Court holds that the provision of notice is compulsory in cases of withdrawal of the declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. 65. Regarding the period of notice, the Court is inspired by two main practices which converge to the minimum requirement of one year. The first example is the practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as provided in Article 78 of the American Convention on Human Rights and applied in the lvcher Bronstein case referred to earlier. The second illustration is the notice period provided for pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Vienna Convention. 66. In light of the foregoing and in the view of the Court, a notice period of one year shall apply to the withdrawal of the Respondent's declaration. D. 67. Legal effects of the withdrawal The Court considers that the legal effects of the withdrawal are two-fold. On the one hand, and considering that a notice period of one year applies, the act of withdrawal will have effect only after the expiry of that period. As a consequence, the Court holds that the withdrawal of the Respondent's declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol shall take effect after a period of one year, that is, from 1 March 2017. 68. On the other hand, the Parties have raised the issue of the possible effect of withdrawal on pending cases. In the view of the Court, an act of the Respondent cannot divest the Court of jurisdiction it had to hear the matter. This position is supported by the legal principle of non-retroactivity which stipulates that new rules apply only to future situations. The Court therefore holds that the Respondent's notification of intention of withdrawal has no legal effect on cases pending before the Court. 16