never raised in the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal and on questions and evidence on which the said court has already ruled. 18. The Applicant did not respond to this objection. *** 19. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it, provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State. 20. The Court emphasises that its material jurisdiction is thus predicated on the Applicant’s allegation of violations of human rights protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.4 In the instant matter, the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 3(1)(2)(e), 5 and 7(1)(c) of the Charter. 21. The Court further recalls its constant jurisprudence that it is neither a trial court nor 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 in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned”.6 The Court would therefore not be sitting either as a trial court or as an appellate court if it were to consider the Applicant’s allegations. The Court therefore dismisses this objection and finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. 4 Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 28; Armand Guéhi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477 § 33; Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 5 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) AfCLR 190, § 14. 6 Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, § 33. 6