irr 00 ot* ffi 18. The Applicants contend that their Application is in conformity with Article 3 of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and any relevant human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State. The Applicants argue therefore, that, the Court should exercise its jurisdiction and consider the Application. 19.The Court has held that Article 3 of the Protocol gives it the power to examine an Application submitted before it as long as the subject matter of the Application involves alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter, the Protocol or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State.l 20.The Court reiterates its well established jurisprudence that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.z However, the Court also emphasised, that "[t]his does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned."3 1 Application No. 003/20'12. Ruling of 2810312014 (Admissibility), PeterJoseph Chacha v united Repubtic of Tanzania, $ 114, Application No. 005/2013. Judgment oI 2011112015 (Merits), Alex Thomas v. tJnited Republic of Tanzania, (hereinafter referred to as ?/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits)'), g 45, Application No. 053/2016. Judgment ot 2810312019 (Merits). Oscar Josiah v United Republic Tanzania (hereinafter " Oscar Josiah v United Republic of Tanzania (Merits)"), S 24. 2 Application No. 001/2013. Decision ol 151Q312013 (Jurisdiction), Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi, $ 14. Application No. 025/2016. Judgment ol 2810312019 (Merits and Reparations), Kenedy tvan v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Kenedy lvan v Tanzania") g 26; Application No. 024D015. Judgment of 07111118 (Merits and Reparations), Armand Guehi v. United Repubtic of Tanzania S 33; Application No. 006/2015. Judgment ot 23103118 (Merits), Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania S 35. 3 Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), 130. See also Application No. 011/20'15, Judgment ot 2810912017 S (Merits), Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Chrsfop her Jonas v Tanzania (Merits)"), $ 28, Application No. 003/2014, Judgment of 2411112017 (Merits), tngabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (hereinafter referred to as "lngabire lJmuhoza v Rwanda (Merits)"), $ 52, Application No. 007/2013, Judgment of 03/06/2013 (Merits), Mohamed Abubakari v. United Repubtic of Tanzania, (hereinafter referred lo as"Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania (Merits)"), $ 2g. 7 {