A. Objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court 18. The Respondent State argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as it raises issues of law and fact, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of its national courts. The Respondent State also contends that the Court does not have the power to quash the conviction and sentence of the Applicant which were lawfully rendered by its Court of Appeal. 19. The Respondent State submits that the quashing of a sentence and ordering of release requires the re-examination of evidence in a matter already concluded by the Court of Appeal. Citing the Court’s decision in the matter of Kennedy Owino and Others v. Tanzania, the Respondent State argues that the Court itself has held that its role is limited to examination of the state’s compliance with procedures in international instruments ratified by the State and not to re-examine issues of evidence already concluded by national courts. 20. The Applicant avers that the Court is vested with jurisdiction to hear this Application under Articles 3 and 27 of the Protocol. *** 21. The Court recalls, as it has consistently held in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, that it has jurisdiction to consider any Application filed before it provided that the Applicant alleges the violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter, the Protocol or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.3 3 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, §§ 34-36; Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Saidi Ally Mang’aya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, § 18; Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 017/2017, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 21. 6