000Iel ii. iii. Grant him reparations for the violation of his rights; and Order such other measures or remedies that the Court may deem fit to grant. 16.The Respondent State prays the Court to rule that: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the Application is inadmissible; i. il 1il. iv. V. V. the Respondent state "has not viorated Articles g(2),2(1),7(1)(c) and 7(1Xd) of the Charter"; the Respondent state "should not pay reparations to the Applicant"; the Application should be dismissed as being baseless; and the costs be borne by the Applicant. JURISDICTION 17.|n accordance with Rule 39(1) of its Rules, "The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction..." A. Objectionstomateriatjurisdiction 18.The Respondent State objects to the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters raised by the Applicant arguing that, in praying the Court to re-examine the matters of fact and law examined by its judicial bodies, set aside their rulings and order the release of the convicted individual, the Applicant is in effect asking the Court to sit as an appellate body, whereas this is not within its powers as set out in Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules. To this end, the Respondent State makes reference to the Court's Decision in Application No. 001/2013: Ernest Francis Mtingwiv. Republic of Malawi. 19' The Applicant rebuts the Respondent State's allegation and asserts that the Court shall have jurisdiction as long as there is a violation of the provisions of the Charter or of any other relevant human rights instruments, which bestow on the court the power to review decisions rendered by domestic co 5 \s