31.In this connection, the Court notes that under Articles 3(1) and 7 of the Protocol,
it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it, provided that the
tights of which violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other
human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.®
32. Thus,
the Court is empowered
to ascertain the conformity of any act of the
Respondent State and its organs with the above-mentioned
instruments.
It
follows that, with regard to national courts, "the Court shall have jurisdiction to
examine their procedures in order to determine whether they are in conformity
with the standards set out in the Charter or in any other human rights instrument
ratified by the State concerned ..."°
33. The Court notes that the present Application raises allegations of violations of
the human rights enshrined in Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the Charter, the examination
of which falls within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court therefore considers that
Respondent State's objections in this respect are unfounded and are therefore
dismissed.
34. The Court therefore holds in conclusion that it has material jurisdiction in this
case.
(2018)
2 AfCLR
493,§
33 ; Werema
Wangoko
Werema
and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania
(merits)(2018) 2 AfCLR 539,§ 29 ; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2017) 2
AFCLR 105, § 28; and Mohamed Abubakari v.United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §
25.
® Peter Joseph
Chacha
v. United Republic of Tanzania
(admissibility), § 114; Alex
Thomas
v. United
Republic of Tanzania (merits), § 45 and Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania, A(CHPR, Application
No. 053/2016 - Judgment of 28 March 2019 (merits), § 24.
°® Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), §130. See also Mohamed Abubakari v.United
Republic of Tanzania (merits), § 29; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), § 28;
Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (merits)(2017) 2 A[CLR 171, § 54.
12