000te0 "the government of the United Republic of Tanzania has not violated articles 3 (1) and (2), article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter, the Court of Appeal considered all grounds of appeal and properly evaluated the evidence before it and rightfully upheld the conviction of the Applicant; the Court of Appeal properly ruled that the doctrine of recent possession and visual identification of the Applicant was proper and sufficient to land conviction, IV the Application be dismissed for lack of merit; and no reparations be awarded in favour of the Applicant" V. JURISDICTION 28. ln 29. ln the instant Application, the court notes from the Respondent state's accordance with Rule 39 (1) of the Rules, the court "shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ... ". submission that the latter disputes only the Court's material jurisdiction. However, the Court shall satisfy itself that it also has personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction to examine the Application. A. 30. Objection to the Material Jurisdiction of the Gourt The Respondent State argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the Application as it requires the Court to adjudicate on issues involving the evaluation of evidence and quashing convictions and setting aside sentences imposed by domestic courts. According to the Respondent State, these are matters duly decided by the highest court of Tanzania and entertaining these issues would require this court to sit as an appellate court to the court of Appeal of ranzania. 31. The Applicant submits that the Court has jurisdiction to consider his Application because it concerns issues of application of the provisions of the Charter, the Protocol and the Rules. ,XG 8 J)