18. The Court decided at the Public Hearing, to grant the respective requests of the Parties and leave to produce the documents in question exercising its discretionary power on the issue of late production of evidence, 19. Consequently, the Parties submitted the aforesaid documents respectively on 5 June 2015 for the Applicant, and on 20 May 2015 for the Respondent State. VI. 20. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT In terms of Rule 39(1) of its Rules, the Court “shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...”. A) Preliminary objection regarding material jurisdiction 21. As regards material jurisdiction, the Respondent State raised an objection, based on the fact that, in its view the Court was not supposed to act as an appellate jurisdiction; it also objected to the fact that the Applicant had allegedly not invoked the appropriate provisions of the Protocol and the Rules of Court. 1) Objection regarding lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Court could not have considered the evidence on which the Applicant's conviction was based without acting as an appellate jurisdiction 22. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent State, particularly in regard to the question of evidence on the basis of which the Applicant was tried by the national courts, argued that the Applicant was in effect requesting that the Court act as an appellate jurisdiction whereas it is not competent to do. The Respondent State in particular averred that “Article 3 (1) the Protocol does not give the Court jurisdiction to pronounce itself on issues of evidence or to sit as an appellate court”. Invoking the Court’s jurisdiction in the Matter of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, the Respondent State submitted that the Applicant had prayed this Court to “quash the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania” whereas “oO 10 Ae i wre eo