16. The Respondent State raises an objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court. The Court will therefore consider the said objection before examining other conditions of admissibility if necessary. A. Objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court 17. The Respondent State argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as it raises issues of law and fact, which have been determined with finality by its Court of Appeal. The Respondent State avers that, through this Application, the Court is being called upon to act as an appellate court. 18. Relying on Rule 26 of the Rules2 and the Ruling in Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi, the Respondent State also contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to quash the conviction, set aside sentences and order the release of the Applicant from prison as the decision to convict and sentence the Applicant was affirmed by its highest court. 19. On his part, citing the jurisprudence of the Court in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, the Applicant asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to determine this Application as it alleges violations of his rights protected by the Charter and other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. *** 20. The Court recalls, as it has consistently held in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol that, it has jurisdiction to consider any Application filed before it provided that the latter alleges the violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter, the Protocol or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.3 2 Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, §§ 45; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017), 2 AfCLR 65, § 34-36; Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, § 18; Abdallah Sospeter Mabomba v. United Republic 3 6