40. The Court first notes that it is vested with a general mission to protect all human rights enshrined in the Charter or any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State 1 . 41. The Court holds that human rights violations may, in different degrees, lead to diverse prejudices for the victim which include economic, financial, material and moral or other forms of damages. Damages are therefore a consequence of the violation of a right and the nature of such damages does not determine the material jurisdiction of the Court. 42.As it has already established in the case of Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania that, "as long as the rights allegedly violated come under the purview of the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned'", the Court will exercise its jurisdiction. In the instant case, the Court notes that the "commercial and political" damages for which the Applicant seeks reparation relate to the rights guaranteed under the Charter inter alia: presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, the right to own property, the right to the dignity of the human person and to reputation and the right to equal protection of the law. 43 .The Court consequently notes that its material jurisdiction is established to consider a matter in which the Applicant requests it to find that there has been violation of his rights as referred to herein-above (paragraphs 9, 10 and 11) and to order reparation of the attendant prejudices, regardless of their commercial or political nature. 44. The Court also affirms that , in the instant case, its jurisdiction is established because political rights, such as the right to stand for election and to remain in power are covered by Article 13(1) of the Charter. I Application No. 009/2011, Judgment of 1416/20134 (Merits), Reverend Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania, Admissibility) § 82.1. 2 Application No.003/2012 . Ruling of 28/3/2014, Admissibility, Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (herein-after referred to as "Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania Judgment") Admissibility), § 114. I