***
22. In the instant Application, the Court observes that although the Respondent
State has particularised three strands to its objection, the essence of the
objection is that the Court does not have either original or appellate
jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of its domestic courts.
23. In connection with the Respondent State’s objection, the Court reiterates
that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to consider any
application submitted to it provided that the rights of which a violation is
alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instruments
ratified by the Respondent State.3 Given that the Applicant is, among other
things, alleging possible violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 of the
Charter, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to determine these
allegations.
24. Regarding the Respondent State’s assertion that the Court neither has
original criminal jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction, the Court recalls its
established position that it does not exercise original or appellate jurisdiction
with respect to the decisions of domestic courts.4 The preceding
notwithstanding, the Court retains the authority to evaluate the conformity
of domestic proceedings to the standards established in international
human rights instruments ratified by the concerned State.5
25. Following from the above, therefore, if the procedure leading to the
conviction and sentencing of an applicant is found to be in violation of the
standards provided for in the Charter, then, the Court is empowered to make
3
Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18;
Gozbert Henrico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10
January 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 33-40.
4 Kenedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 26; Nguza
Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March
2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35.
5 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR
477, § 33; Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7
December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 29 and Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20
November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 130.
7