00033 of human rights relate to the way in which domestic courts evaluate evidence, the Court retains the power to examine whether such assessment is compatible with international human rights standards.a This is within the purview of its jurisdiction and doing so, does not require the Court to sit as an appellate Court. The Respondent State's objection in this regard is thus dismissed. 32.The Court therefore finds that it has material jurisdiction to consider the instant Application. B. Other aspects of iurisdiction a 33.The Court notes that the other aspects of its jurisdiction are not contested by the Respondent State and nothing on the record indicates that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this regard. The Court thus holds: i. that it has personaljurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a Party to the Protocol and deposited the declaration required under Article 34(6) thereof which enabled the Applicants to access the Court in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol; ii. that it has temporal jurisdiction on the basis that the alleged violations are continuous in nature, in that the Applicants remain convicted and are serving a sentence of thirty (30) years' imprisonment on grounds which they consider are wrong and indefensibles; and o iii. that it has territorialjurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred in the territory of a State Party to the Protocol, that is, the Respondent State. 34. From the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to examine this Application. a Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment, S 130; Application No. 007/2013. Judgmentof 2010512016, Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania. (hereinafter referred lo as "Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania Judgment"), $ 26. 5 See Application No. 01312011. Ruling on Preliminary Objections,2110612013, Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, (hereinafter referred to as "Norbert Zongo and Others Ruling"), $$ 71 to 77. 11 -s Y {