the conviction, set aside the sentence and release the Applicant from prison. The Respondent State also submits that the Application does not raise any issue on the interpretation of the Charter, the Protocol or any relevant human rights instruments ratified by Tanzania. Rather, it raises legal and evidentiary issues that were dealt with by the domestic courts. 18. The Applicant opposes the objection by arguing that, although the Court is not an appellate court, it is vested with jurisdiction over the Application as it alleges violation of rights protected by the Charter. Citing Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, the Applicant contends that the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the treatment of the alleged legal and evidentiary anomalies by the domestic courts complies with the standards of the Charter. *** 19. The Court recalls that by virtue of 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.6 20. The Court notes that the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction is premised on three (3) grounds namely: (i) the Court vesting itself with appellate jurisdiction over matters determined by its domestic courts; (ii) the Court’s powers to quash convictions and set aside the death penalty legally meted out on the Applicant; and (iii) the Application raising legal issues covered in its municipal laws rather than the Charter or ratified international human rights instruments, that have already been determined by its domestic courts. The Court will now address each of the grounds raised by the Respondent State in support of its objection. 6 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania, (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 7