13. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”6 14. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 15. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus, first, consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 16. The Respondent State raises three issues in respect of the Court’s material jurisdiction. First, that the Applicant is asking the Court to sit as a Court of first instance and to adjudicate on matters, which were never raised before the national courts. 17. Second, that the Court is being called upon to act as an appellate Court by raising issues of fact and law which have already been determined by the Court of Appeal, which is its highest Court. 18. Lastly, the Respondent State relying on Rule 29 of the Rules of Court and the Court’s jurisprudence in the case of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and order the release of the Applicant from prison as the decision to convict and sentence the Applicant was affirmed by its highest Court. * 6 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6