17. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus first consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 18. The Respondent State submits that the Court, which is not an appellate criminal court, is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain this Application after its Court of Appeal has decisively concluded the matter. It avers that the Applicant, as an afterthought, is raising for the first time the claim that the Justice of the Peace failed to inquire into the circumstances of how the Applicant sustained the wounds on his hands when he was brought before the Justice of Peace by a police officer, whereas, he had the opportunity to raise it before the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Tanzania but opted to not do so in the course of the domestic proceedings. * 19. The Applicant in his rejoinder contends that this Court has taken a position on the issue at hand on more than one occasion and held that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26(1)(a) of the Rules its material jurisdiction extends to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the state concerned. Citing the case of Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania, the Applicant submits that the Court exercises its jurisdiction over an application as long as its subject matter involves alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State. *** 20. The Court observes that, as opposed to the Respondent State’s submission, the objection raised relates to this Court being called to sit as a 6