of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other
human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.3
29. The Court recalls that, in accordance with its established case-law, it is
competent to examine relevant proceedings before domestic courts to
determine whether they comply with the standards set out in the Charter or
any other instrument ratified by the State concerned.4 Consequently, the
Respondent State’s objection that the Court would be sitting as a court of
first instance is dismissed.
30. The Court further recalls its established jurisprudence “that it is not an
appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.”5 However, “...
this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national
courts in order to determine whether they are compatible with the standards
set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the
State concerned.”6 Therefore, it would not be sitting as an appellate court if
it were to examine the allegations by the Applicants. Accordingly, the
Respondent State’s objection in this regard is also dismissed.
31. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to
consider the present Applications.
B. Other Aspects of Jurisdiction
32. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not challenge its personal,
temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of
3
Kalebi Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18.
Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013), 1 AfCLR 190, § 14;
Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 26; Armand
Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Nguza Viking (Babu
Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2
AfCLR 287, § 35.
5 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi (jurisdiction), § 14.
6 Ivan v. Tanzania (merits), § 26; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 33; Nguza Viking
(Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 35.
4
9