that it has ratified the Charter and the Protocol and deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to examine alleged evidentiary discrepancies during the domestic proceedings. 20. The Respondent State further points out that the Applicants appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and the latter considered the records of the High Court before dismissing their appeal. Given the preceding, the Respondent State asserts that this Court cannot be moved to sit again as both a trial and an appellate court for issues that are within the jurisdiction of domestic courts. In support of its submissions, the Respondent State cites the Court’s decision in Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi. 21. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13(1) of its Constitution, the Respondent State submits that this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to rule on its actions or omissions, as the proper court vested with such jurisdiction is the High Court of Tanzania, as provided for under Article 30(3) of its Constitution and Section 4 and Section 9(1) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The Respondent State therefore prays the Court to dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction. *** 22. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine “all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned.”4 23. The Court observes that the Respondent State’s objection coalesces around two arguments being, first, that the Court cannot sit as a trial court 4 See, 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), §§ 38-40. 7