other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.” 10
Therefore, in the present Application, the Court would not be sitting as an
appellate court, if it were to examine the allegations made by the Applicants
merely because they relate to the assessment of evidentiary issues.
Consequently, the second limb of the objection is also dismissed.
34. With regard to the third limb of the objection, the Court reiterates that
pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Protocol, it is empowered to make
appropriate orders on reparations, if it finds a violation of the rights
guaranteed by the Charter or any instrument ratified by the Respondent
State. Furthermore, the Court may make an order for release as a measure
of restitution, where it finds that the Applicants have demonstrated specific
and compelling circumstances warranting such an order.11 Consequently,
the Court considers that issuing an order for release where the requirements
are met is well within its jurisdiction. The third limb of the objection is thus
equally dismissed.
35. In light of all the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s
objection and holds that it has material jurisdiction to consider the present
Application.
B. Other aspects of jurisdiction
36. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal,
temporal and territorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 49(1) of
the Rules,12 it must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are fulfilled
before proceeding.
10
Mtingwi v. Malawi, ibid; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28
March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 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 (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35.
11 See Amir and Ally v. Tanzania, supra, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania, supra, § 112 and Minani Evarist
v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 402, § 82.
12 Rule 39(1) of Rules of Court, 2 June 2010.
11