i. Objection based on the allegation that the Court is being called to act as a court of first instance 31. The Court is of the view, with respect to whether it is called to act as a court of first instance, that, by virtue of Article 3 of the Protocol, it has material jurisdiction so long as "the Application alleges violations of provisions of international instruments to which the Respondent State is a party"4 In the instant matter, the Applicant alleges violations of rights guaranteed in the Charter. 32. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent State's objection on this point. ii. Objection based on the allegation that the Court is being called to assume appellate jurisdiction 33. Regarding the question whether it would be exercising appellate jurisdiction by examining certain claims, which the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had already determined, this Court reiterates its position that it is not an appellate court with respect to decisions of national courts. 5 However, as it has previously held in the case of Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court restates that the fact that it is not an appellate court vis-a-vis domestic courts does not preclude it from assessing whether domestic proceedings were conducted in accordance with international standards set out in the Charter and other international human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned 6 In the present case, the Applicant alleges the violation of his rights guaranteed in the Charter, which is a human rights instrument duly ratified by the Respondent State as earlier recalled. 34. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection on this point. See Application No. 006/2015. Judgment of 23/03/18, Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. Tanzania'), § 36. 5 See Application No. 001/2013. Decision of 15/03/13, Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Matawi, § 14; Atex Thomas v. Tanzania, §§ 60-65; and Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. Tanzania, op. cit., §. 35. 6 See for instance, Application No. 00712013. Judgment of 03/06/2016, Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania'), § 29; and Application No. 003/2012. Judgment of 28103/14, Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 114. 4 10