State avers that the Court does not have jurisdiction to re-analyse the evidence, quash the conviction, set aside sentences and order the Applicant’s release. 26. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s submissions and contends that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26(1)(a) of the Rules8 since his Application involves alleged violations of human rights protected by the Charter. In his reply to the Respondent State’s response to the amended pleadings, the Applicant further submits that his Application falls within the Court’s jurisdiction given that he is merely alleging that the acts and omissions in the proceedings before domestic courts amount to a violation of human rights. 27. In his reply, the Applicant also contends that this Court has jurisdiction to quash his conviction, set aside his sentence and order his release from prison based on the Court’s relevant jurisprudence and its broad discretion under Article 27(1) of the Protocol. *** 28. The Court recalls that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.9 29. Regarding the contention that the Court would be exercising appellate jurisdiction, by examining certain claims which were already determined by the Respondent State’s domestic courts, the Court reiterates its position that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to the decisions 8 Rule 29(1)(a), Rules of Court, 2020. Matoke Mwita and Masero Mkami v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 007/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (judgment), § 24; Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 052/2016, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 23-27 and Kalebi Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 9 8