000 232 22. The Respondent State contends that, in the instant Application, and contrary to the above-mentioned provision, the Applicant seems to pray this Court to act as a Court of First lnstance and to adjudicate allegations which the Applicant never raised before domestic courts. The Respondent State notes that, before the domestic courts, the Applicant had not raised the issues which he was bringing up for the first time before this Court, in particular: aa i. ii. denying him bail pending his trial; application of a penalty based on a crime that was non-existent at the time the incident took place; iii. the denial of his right to be assisted by Counsel before the High Court and the Court of Appeal; iv. the conduct of proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the absence of the Applicant and without the originals of the record of proceedings on the appeal file." 23.The Respondent State submits, in conclusion, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this Application. 24.The Applicant refutes the Respondent State's argument, stating that since the Court is empowered to dealwith issues of human rights violation in the interest of justice and equity, it is also empowered to examine his Application regardless of its shortcomings and whether or not the issues raised before the Court had been brought before domestic courts. *** 25.The Court recalls its long-standing jurisprudence in the matter and reaffirms that its material jurisdiction is established if the Application brought before it raises allegations of violation of human rights; and that it suffices on this issue that the 7 Y.NL- \