and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 14.In accordance with Rule 39(1) of the Rules “[t]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...” 15.On the basis preliminarily of the conduct above-cited an provisions, assessment therefore, of its jurisdiction the and Court must, dispose of objections, if any, to its jurisdiction. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 16. Citing the Court’s decision in the matter of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi, the Respondent State claims that by praying the Court to review the points of fact and law already examined by the domestic courts, the Applicant is asking the Court to sit as an appellate court. According to the Respondent State, this is not within its jurisdiction as set out in Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules. 17. The Applicant states that “It is common knowledge that this Court is not an Appellate Court in terms of the decisions rendered by the national Courts. However, this position does not preclude the jurisdiction of this ... Court to examine whether the procedures before the national courts are consistent with the international standards required by the applicable human rights instruments.” Citing the Court's judgment of 3 June 2016, in the matter of Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania, the Applicant concludes that the “Court has jurisdiction over the matter under Article 3 and 5 of the Protocol...” RK