entry into force v.rith regard to Malawi, of the Protocol establishing the Court on 9 October 2008 (paragraph 30{2) of the judgment). 6. The Court overrules t.hts objcclion on the grounds f'onlamed m Lhc followmg passage: "The Court notes that lhL Charter camt: mlo operation on 2 1 Octob<.r, 1986 and the Respondent ralifi~d Lhe Charter in 1989 It as rhe view of t..hc Court, therefon., thal at the ume of the nlleged violat.iou of thr. Applicant's rights in 1999. the Charter was already binding on the Respondent; lhe latter was under the duty to protect th~ Applicant's rights alleged lo have been Vlul alt.•cl. li'urlhennore, Lhc Court nolcs that tht..· Appllcant's co!'\c is lhot the alleged vaolalion of his rights under Artit.les 7 nnd 15 IS For the above: reason:-., lhe prelurunAry ohjecuon rat~cd by the continuing. Respondent cannot succeed" (p:-1mgraph 32). 7. The first reason advanced by U1c Courl (the prior ratification of I he Charter) is incomprehen stblc Rncl confusing. within Lhe conlcxt of th~ specific OUJCCUon raised by the Respondent. In fact, wh.Ln;as the OQjection by Lbe Respondent State is based, as far fi.S it was ~.:onccrned on the date of entry into force of the Protocol to establish the Court, the Court's response is lo mvoke the date of entry into force of the Chnrter which was not an tssue for the Re~-pondcnl Stale And one docs not C'JUlle sec what I he Court draws as conch.ts1on from the date of entry inlo force of Lhc Charter, rcgardmg the Respondent State's argument of non-retroact ivity ollhc ProtocoP. 8. In our opinion. the Courl ought to have been uneqwvocal on this point and ~hould have indicated that U1ough lhe Respondent Sta te wa~ alrcadv bound by the Charter, t hc- Court lacks temporal jurisd1cLion Wtlh respect lo ll, as long as Lhe Protocol co nferring JUnsdictiOn on il is yet to become opcrattonnl, unless of course the argument of lht! alleged continui ng vtolatton ts invoked same problem u.rost• in lhe mnttt<r or tl,.. Tfmqrmytkn l.,nw Sori~Ty &nl. v. Tit~ llmted Republtc of TcmzwlllJ, the 14 .June 2013 JUd£.ment. See the separate opmton of Judge Gerord 3 Th~ Ntyungeko, parngrnph~ 8 lo 17. 3