Constitution of the Respondent and the Charter to which the Respondent is a State Party. 32. Responding to the Respondent's objection that the Application requires the Court to go beyond its jurisdiction and sit as an Appellate Court, the Applicants submit that as long as the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent, the Court has jurisdiction. iii) The Court's assessment 33.ln order to ascertain its material jurisdiction, the Court will consider three of the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent: the allegation that the conviction and sentence of the Applicants to 30 years' imprisonment was unconstitutional and contrary to Article 7 (2) of the Charter; the allegation that the identification parade was flawed with procedural irregularities is a matter that requires this Court to sit as a "Supreme Appellate Court"; and the allegation that the Respondent violated 'all accepted principles of human rights' "is vague" and does not disclose any particular article alleged to have been violated. 1 34. The Court notes that Article 3 (1) of the Protocol provides that the material jurisdiction of the Court extends to "all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned." 35. In this regard, the jurisprudence of the Court has, in the judgment of Peter Chacha v The United Republic of Tanzania, established that: "As long as the rights allegedly violated fall under the aegis of the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction over the matter."2 1 The Court notes that the other preliminary objections of the Respondent concerning the jurisdiction of the Court are pertinent to the admissibility of the Application and hence, will be addressed in the admissibility section on admissibility. 2 Peter Joseph Chacha v The United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 003/2014 judgment of 8 March 2014 (hereinafter referred to as Peter Chach~ Case), para. 114 ~ JfE hA~~~