39.|t concludes that it has jurisdiction as follows "The Court reiterates its position that it is not an appellate body in respect of decisions of the domestic courts However, as the Court emphasised in its judgment in Alex Thomas v. the United Republic of Tanzania, and confirmed in its judgment in Mohamed Abubakari v. the United Republic of Tanzania, lhis circumstance does not affect its jurisdiction to examine whether proceedings before national courts meet the international standards established by the Charter or other applicable human rights instruments. The Court therefore rejects the objection raised in this regard by the Respondent State and concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction22. The Court does not appear to be taking a posrtion on the question of which of the two Articles is the basis for its jurisdiction. 40.|n order to refute the Respondent State's contention and to establish its jurisdiction in the Nguza23 Judgment, the Court begins by relying first on its own jurisprudence2a. lt goes on to have recourse to the applicable law in general, namely: "as it stressed in the judgment of 20 November 2016 in the case ol Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania and confirmed in the judgment of 3 June 20 6 1 in the case of Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, this does not exclude its jurisdiction to assess whether proceedings before national courts meet the international standards established by the Charter or by other applicable human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a party", §§ 33 et seq. It then infers jurisdiction from this and refers to Article 3 of the Protocol tr lPR. ('hri.stophu .h»tts t L.lnirecl llepuhlic' ol l'un:tniu. Judgrncnt. 28 Scptcmbcr 2017: Convictcd ^lCl lbr robbcrl ol'rnoncr and various olhcr valuablcs. scntcnccd -l'hc a violation of his rights during his dctcntion and trial. and ,llr ('hri.sropher.httrus lilcd this application alleging ('ourt lound that thc cvidcncc prcscntcd during thc tlorncstic procccdings had bccn asscsscrl according to thc rcquircnrents ()t'a lair trial. but that the làct thal thc Àpplicant had not rcccived licc'le'gal ai<l constitutcd a violation ol'thc ('hancr. r'^t(llPR. l')'nr:.st l"runc is .t/r,r.gr|i r'. llcpublic o/ .llulari. l5 March 201i. § l0li. -l l.:nitel llepublic o.f dn:e,utt. l0 Novcrnbcr 2015. §: lll'j1201.1. I'eter ,ltxcph ('luchu v. 15,'i 'litrr:unia,ltl March l0l"l. § l ll. l')nast l'runLis .\ltingxi r. llapublic rtl .\lulLtvi. l5 l4: .ll,:.r-l futnu.s t. Ilnitcd Rtpuhlic tl lVlarch 2011. § l-1. t4