instrument ratified by the State concerned.14 45. In the instant matter, the Applicants allege violations of rights guaranteed in the Charter, the ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the Algiers Convention, all being instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. 46. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. iii. Objection based on the ground that the Court is not an appellate court 47. The Respondent State submits that following the dumping of the toxic waste, investigations were carried out and the persons involved were prosecuted before competent domestic courts. According to the Respondent State, as this Court is not an appellate court, the Applicants are not entitled to bring before it, for review, decisions rendered by the competent courts of a sovereign and independent State. 48. The Applicants did not respond to the Respondent State’s submissions on this issue. *** 49. The Court recalls, in accordance with its constant jurisprudence, that “it does not have appellate jurisdiction to receive and consider appeals in respect of cases already decided upon by domestic courts (...)”.15 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.”16 14 Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, § 33; Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 29; Franck David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 358, § 74; Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 RJCA 398, § 118; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 45; APDH v. Côte d'Ivoire (merits), supra, §§ 48-65. 15 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 16 Kenedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019), 3 AfCLR § 26; Armand Guehi v. United Republic of 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 15