20. In their Reply, the Applicants contend that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. They concede that the Court is not an appellate court, in relation to decisions from domestic courts, but argue that “this does not preclude the jurisdiction of this honourable court to examine whether the procedures before the national courts are consistent with the international touch-stone required by the applicable human rights instruments.” In support of their arguments, the Applicants cite the Court’s decision in Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania. *** 21. The Court observes that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights alleged to have been violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State. 22. As regards the Respondent State’s contention that the Court would be exercising appellate jurisdiction by examining the evidential basis of the Applicants’ conviction, the Court reiterates its established position that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to the decisions of domestic courts.4 At the same time, however, and notwithstanding that the Court is not an appellate court vis-à-vis domestic courts, it retains the power to assess the propriety of domestic proceedings against standards set out in international human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.5 In performing the aforementioned function, the Court does not thereby constitute itself as an appellate court. 23. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. 4 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 26; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 5 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Werema Wangoko Werema and another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 29 and Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 130. 7