000835 29- The Court reiterates its position that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to claims already examined by national courts.3 Nevertheless, while it does not have appellate jurisdiction in relation to domestic courts, the Court retains the power to assess the propriety of domestic proceedings in the light of a State's international commitments.a 30. Regarding the Respondent state's objection, the court notes that the essence of the objection is that the Applicant is asking the Court to deliberate on matters that were already concluded by its domestic courts. The Court further notes that the allegations by the Applicant are within the purview of its jurisdiction given that they invoke rights protected under the Charter. 31. As established by the court's jurisprudence, examining a state's compliance with its international obligations does not amount to the Court sitting as an appellate court.s The court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent state,s objection in this regard. 32. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to deal with the Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 33. The Court notes that other aspects of its jurisdiction are not contested by the Parties and nothing on the record indicates that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, holds that: It has personal jurisdiction given that the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and it is deposited the required Declaration. 3 Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, /Dld, S 33. see, also, Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (2015) (Merits) 1 ArcLR 465 SS 60-65. a See, Armand Guehi v. Tanzania, /Drd note 2, $ 33. 5 Kenedy lvan v Tanzania, supra note t, g ZA-ZZ . 8 @