A. Objection to material jurisdiction 17. The Respondent State submits that the Court has no material jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the Applicant is seeking his release from prison. It is the Respondent State’s submission that the Court would be acting as an appellate court if it were to determine the Application. The Respondent State concludes that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Application. 18. In support of its objection, the Respondent State recalls the decision of the Court in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania at paragraph 157, where the Court held that: “an order for the Applicant’s release from prison can be made only under very specific and/or, compelling circumstances. ln the instant case, the Applicant has not set out specific or compelling circumstances that would warrant the Court to grant such an order”. 19. The Respondent State contends that in the present case, the Applicant did not demonstrate exceptional or compelling circumstances for the Court to issue an order for his release. The Respondent State therefore argues that such an order is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. * 20. The Applicant asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over an application as long as the subject matter of the application involves alleged violations of human rights protected by the Charter or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State. He adds that the request for his release falls within the jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of the Charter and the Protocol. According to the Applicant, although this Court is not a court of appeal for domestic courts’ decisions, nothing prevents it from considering the extent to which proceedings before domestic courts comply with standards set out in the Charter and other international human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. The Applicant further submits that the Court had previously issued an 6