connection with proceedings before the domestic courts and the nonreimbursement of his claim. 27. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the argument relating to the contractual dispute between persons who are legally distinct from the Respondent State lacks merit. 28. In relation to the second objection, the Court has consistently held that it has jurisdiction to examine whether national judicial procedures comply with the standards laid down in the Charter or any other instrument ratified by the State concerned.7 29. Thus, the Court has held that “it does not have any appellate jurisdiction to receive and consider appeals in respect of cases already decided upon by domestic courts,”8 but “it determines whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned”.9 Therefore, in the present case, if it were to examine the allegations of human rights violations raised by the Applicant, the Court would not be acting as an appellate body with respect to the decisions of the Cotonou Court of First Instance but within its own jurisdiction. 30. The Court thus finds that the second argument based on the Court exercising appellate jurisdiction also lacks merit. 31. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the present Application. 7Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) § 33; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 8 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 9 Kennedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 51 § 26; Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, §§ 35 to 39; Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016), 1 AfCLR 540, § 67. 9