contention, the Respondent State refers to the Court’s jurisprudence in Lohe Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso. 22. The Applicant did not reply to the Respondent State’s objection. *** 23. The Court recalls that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State. 24. As regards the Respondent State’s contention that the Court would be exercising appellate jurisdiction by examining the evidentiary basis of the Applicant’s conviction, the Court reiterates its position that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to the decisions of domestic courts.4 At the same time, however, and notwithstanding that the Court is not an appellate court vis-à-vis domestic courts, it retains the power to assess the propriety of domestic proceedings in relation to standards set out in international human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned, and this does not make it an appellate court.5 25. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction and holds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. 4 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14; Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 26; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 5 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 29 and Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 130.