proved beyond reasonable doubt and this Court is not an appellate Court to review the facts. 19. The Respondent State also submits that this Application is calling for this Court to sit as a court of first instance and to adjudicate over matters which the Applicant never raised during the trial. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant only raised two grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal which were dealt with and dismissed, namely, the trial Judge erred in law and fact in that he failed to direct the assessor and, the trial judge grossly erred in law and fact by basing his conviction on the caution statement. 20. The Respondent State finally contends that the mandate of this Court is to make declaratory orders and not to reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeal. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant is calling for this Court to act as an appellate court by reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal with regard to its finding on the matter of the cautioned statement on which the court already pronounced itself at pages 15-17 of its judgment. * 21. The Applicant on his part argues that Article 3, 5(3) of the Protocol, read together with Rule 265 of the Rules of the Court, gives this Court the power to deal with the violations of his fundamental human rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and also enshrined in Article 3, 5, 6, 7(1), 14 and 26 of the Charter. The Applicant further contends that the Respondent State, being a party to the Protocol and the Charter, and having also deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, this Court has material jurisdiction to hear the present Application. *** 5 Rule 29 of the Rules of the Court, 25 September 2020. 7