00033s proceedings and judgments of the national courts are in accordance with international human rights standards. *** 29.Article 3 (1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 (1 ) (a) of the Rules specify that the material jurisdiction of the Court extends to "all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned." ln this regard, the Court has observed that it exercises its jurisdiction over an Application in so far as the subject matter of the Application involves alleged violations of rights protected by the a Charter or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State.2 The Court has further stated that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to uphold or reverse judgments of domestic courts merely depending on the manner in which evidentiary issues were considered in the national proceedings.3 30.|n the instant Application, the Court notes that the Applicants raise issues relating to alleged violations of human rights protected by the Charter. The Court further notes that the Applicants' allegations essentially challenge the manner in which the domestic courts of the Respondent State evaluated the evidence that was used to justify their conviction. o 31. However, the fact that the Applicants question the manner in which domestic courts have assessed evidence does not prevent the Court from making determination on the allegations contained in the Application. lt is also wellestablished in the jurisprudence of this Court that where allegations of violations 2 Application No. 003/2014. Ruling on Admissibility of 281312014, Peter Joseph Chacha v lJnited Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Peter Chacha v Tanzania Ruling'), S 1 14. 3 Application No. 001/201. Judgment of ,1510312015, Ernest Francis Mtingwi v The Republic of Malawi, g 14. 10 q(' <5