22. In his Reply, the Applicant submits that the Court has material jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter because the violations levelled against the Respondent State concerns rights protected in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter. *** 23. 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.7 24. 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. 8 In the instant matter, the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter. 25. With regard to the first aspect of the objection, the Court recalls its established jurisprudence that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.9 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”.10 Accordingly, the Court would not be sitting as an appellate court if it were to consider the Applicant’s allegations. The Court, therefore, dismisses objection on this aspect. 7 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 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. 9 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 10 Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, § 33. 8 7