option of addressing the matters to the High Court for redress. He avers that he has already pursued this avenue right up to the Court of Appeal. *** 23. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine “all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned”.5 24. In this regard, the Court recalls its established case-law that although it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts,6 this does not preclude it from examining proceedings of the said courts in order to determine whether they were conducted in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.”7 As such, in the present Application, the Court would not be sitting as an appellate court, if it were to examine the allegations made by the Applicant simply because they relate to the assessment of evidentiary issues. Consequently, the Respondent State’s objection in this regard is dismissed. 25. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to consider the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 26. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of 5 See, for instance, Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18; Gozbert Henrico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 38-40. 6 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 7 Mtingwi v. Malawi, ibid; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 8