19. In response to the Respondent State’s objection, the Applicant argues that the Court has jurisdiction in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26(2) of the Rules. He asserts that the Respondent State’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction is a “misjudgement or a misinterpretation” of both the Court’s authority and the principles enshrined in the Charter. According to him, his Application relates to the violation of his right to a fair trial, resulting in an unfair conviction and sentence of 30 years imprisonment. 20. The Applicant further submits that this Court would not be sitting as an appellate Court if it adjudicated on his Application. With regard to the objection that some of his allegations are being raised for the first time before this Court, the Applicant contends that the said objection relates to the admissibility requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and it is illogical for the Respondent State to raise it in respect to the jurisdiction of the Court. *** 21. In relation to the first objection, that the Court is being called to sit as a Court of first instance and to adjudicate on matters, which were never raised before the national courts, the Court recalls that its jurisdiction is established under Article 3 of the Protocol pursuant to which it has competence to consider any application filed before it provided that the Applicant alleges the violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter, the Protocol or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.7 Given that in the present Application, the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 7(1)(b) and 27(1) of the Charter, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Application. 22. Consequently, the objection that the Court would be sitting as a court of first instance is dismissed. 7 Daud Sumano Kilagela v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 017/2018, Judgment on 3 September 2024 (merits and reparations), § 7. 7