as both a trial and appellate Court for issues which are within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts. It is the Respondent State’s contention that doing so would require the Court to deal with the municipal criminal laws of the Respondent State rather than addressing itself to the provisions of the Charter, the human rights instruments envisaged under Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules. 19. Citing the Court’s jurisprudence in the Matter of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi, the Respondent State submits that this Court does not have any appellate jurisdiction to receive and consider appeals in respect of cases already decided by domestic, regional or similar Courts. 20. Regarding the allegations of violations of Article 13(1) of the Constitution, the Respondent State submits that this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to determine its actions or omissions as the proper court vested with such jurisdiction is the High Court of Tanzania as provided for under Article 30(3) of the Constitution and Section 4 and Section 9(1) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The Respondent State concludes by praying the Court to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction. * 21. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State arguments that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his Application. He asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to consider an application whenever violations of fundamental rights as provided for in the Respondent State’s Constitution, the Charter and other international human rights instruments to which it is a State Party are alleged. The Applicant also recalls that the Respondent State has ratified the Protocol and deposited the Declaration required under Article 34(6) thereof. 22. The Applicant further avers that the provisions referred to by the Respondent State, that is, Article 30(3) of the Tanzanian Constitution and Section 4 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act all relate to the 7