and application of the Charter, th[e] Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned”.4 28. The Court reiterates its established case-law that “although it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts,5 this does not preclude it from examining proceedings of the said courts in order to determine whether they were conducted in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.”6 As such, in the present Application, the Court would not be sitting as an appellate court if it were to examine the allegations made by the Applicant simply because they relate to the assessment of evidentiary issues. Consequently, the Respondent State’s objection in this regard is dismissed. 29. With regard to the objection relating to setting aside the Applicant’s conviction and sentence and ordering his release, the Court reiterates that pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Protocol, it is empowered to make appropriate orders on reparations if it finds a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Charter or any instrument ratified by the Respondent State. Furthermore, the Court may make an order for release as a measure of restitution, where it finds that the Applicant has demonstrated specific and compelling circumstances warranting such an order.7 Consequently, the Court notes that issuing an order for release where the requirements are met is well within its jurisdiction. 4 See, for instance, Cheusi v. Tanzania, (judgment), supra, §§ 37-39; Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18; Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 38-40. 5 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 6 Mtingwi v. Malawi, ibid; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 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. 7 See Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Saidi Ally alias Mangaya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 654, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania, supra, § 112; and Minani Evarist v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 82. 9