000808 ii. Objection on the ground that the Court is being requested to sit as an appellate Court 23.The Respondent State alleges that this Court is being requested to consider matters already settled in the national courts and therefore exercise an appellate jurisdiction. lt especially contends that the Court of Appeal already settled the examination of the visual and voice identification evidence and the evidence regarding the source and intensity of the light relied upon to convict the Applicant. 24.According to the Respondent State, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Application and it should thus be dismissed. 25. The Applicant's reply is that the Court's jurisdiction is invoked "in so far as the applicant's complaints hinges on the adherence to the principles of human and peoples' rights and freedoms contained in the declaration". 26.This Court reiterates its position in the matter of Emest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, in which it noted that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.z However, the Court emphasised in the matter of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, that "...this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned. "3 2 Application No. 001/2013. Decision ot 1510312013 (Jurisdiction), Emest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi,514. s Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), $ 130. See also Application No. 010/2015, Judgment of 28109n017 (Merits), Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter refened to as'Chistopher Jonas v Tanzania (Merits)"), S 28; Application No. 003/2014, Judgment oI 2411112017 (Merits), lngabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (hereinafter referred lo as (hereinafter referred to as "lngabire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Merits)"), $ 52; Application No. 00712013, Judgment of 03/06/2013 (Merits), Mohamed 7 @-