00 c83 r 22. ln his Reply, the Applicant also prays the Court to dismiss the objections to its jurisdiction and reject the contention of the Respondent State contention on the merits of the case. V. 23. JURISDIGTION Pursuant to Rule 39(1) of its Rules: "The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction..." A. Objections to material jurisdiction 24. The Respondent State alleges that the Applicant's prayer that the Court should review the evidence adduced before and reviewed by its courts up to the highest judicial level amounts to asking the Court to act as an appellate jurisdiction, which the Respondent State maintains, is not within the purview of the Court. 25. The Respondent State also claims that the Court's mandate is only limited to interpreting and applying the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, Rules 26 and 4O(2) of the Rules, mirroring its own decision in Application No. 001/2013: Emest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi. 26. The Respondent State further submits that it is the first time that the Applicant raises the issue of alleged violation of Article 13(2) and (5) of the constitution; Section 130(2) and Section 131 (2) of the Tanzanian Penal Code, as well as the violation of Article 7(1Xc) of the Charter concerning legal aid. lt maintains that by failing to raise these issues before the domestic courts, the Applicant would be asking this Court to act as a court of first instance, for which it lacks jurisdiction. The Respondent State emphasises that the Court is not a court of first instance to deal with the question of unconstitutionality. *** Yh^^q f>,-"- r