observes that it does not have jurisdiction to examine the constitutionality of domestic legislation. However, the Court can examine the extent to which such legislation violates the provisions of the Charter or other international human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent. Doing so would not require this Court to sit as a Supreme Court of Appeal because the Court is not applying "the same law as the Tanzanian national courts, that is, Tanzanian law."4 The Court rather applies exclusively "the provisions of the Charter and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned"5. 40.ln view of the above, the Respondent's preliminary objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court on these grounds is dismissed and therefore, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to examine this Application. B. Personal Jurisdiction i) Respondent's Submissions 41. The Respondent challenges the Court's personal jurisdiction stating that the Application contains allegations against a State, the Republic of Kenya, which has not made the declaration accepting the Court's competence to receive complaints from individuals and NGOs as required by Article 34(6) of the Protocol. ii) Applicants' Submissions 42. On their part, the Applicants argue that the Application is not filed against Kenya, and that the allegations against the Republic of Kenya are made to provide a full narrative of events as they unfolded in relation to the case. iii) The Court's Assessment 43. The Court notes that the Application is brought against the Republic of Tanzania, which is a State Party to the Charter and the Protocol, and which deposited the declaration in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March 4Jbid, para. 28. 5 Ibid. 13