00fi?3 19.1n accordance with Rule 39(1) of the Rules, "[T]he Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...'. 20. The Respondent State raises two objections relating, first, to whether the Court will be exercising appellate jurisdiction and, second, to whether the Court will be acting as a court of first instance with respect to the violations alleged by the Applicants. A. Objection to material jurisdiction Objection on the ground that this Court is being requested to assume appellate jurisdiction 21.The Respondent State avers that this Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the present Application, as the latter is asking the Court to assume appellate jurisdiction with respect to the prayers for the conviction to be quashed, the sentence to be set aside, and the Applicants to be released. The Respondent State submits that doing so will require the Court to re-evaluate the evidence and the decision of the Court of Appeal, which is the supreme court of the land. 22.The Respondent State further submits that the request for the Court to assume appellate jurisdiction is specifically with respect to the fact that one of the Applicants, Geofrey Stanley, seeks to appeal in this Court against his conviction and sentencing. Finally, the Respondent State contends that the allegations referred to were sufficiently dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2012. The Respondent State cites, in support of its contentions, the judgment of this Court in the case of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi. 23. The Applicants, in their Reply, submit that this Application is within the jurisdiction of the Court since the violations are constituted and the rights invoked are protected under the Charter. With respect to the Respondent State's submission that this Court is being called to sit as an appellate court, the Applicants submit that they are only seeking to assess the Respondent 9 a