Charter, Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned hence do not afford the Court unlimited jurisdiction. 23. The Respondent State further avers that though the Court can make its findings as per Article 27(1) of the Protocol, the prayers being sought by the First Applicant are beyond the mandate of the Court as the Applicant is seeking to be released from custody. In support of its arguments, the Respondent State referred to the Court’s jurisprudence as expounded in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania and submits that to grant the order sought is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. 24. The Applicants rebut the Respondent State’s objection and contend that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Article 56(2) of the Charter since the Application involves alleged violations of human rights protected by the Charter. *** 25. The Court recalls that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine 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 instrument ratified by the Respondent State.5 26. The Court further notes that pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Protocol, “[i]f the Court finds that there has been violation of a human or peoples’ right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation.” 27. It follows from these provisions, and its jurisprudence that the Court is empowered to make any order that it deems appropriate when a violation 5 Matoke Mwita and Masero Mkami v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 007/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (judgment), § 24; Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 052/2016, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 23-27 and Kalebi Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 7