that were never brought before any domestic court, both Applicants are attempting to constitute the Court as a first instance court, contrary to both the Charter and the Protocol. As for the contention that the Court is not an appellate court, the Respondent State argues, in both Applications, by inviting the Court to reconsider evidential issues already resolved by domestic courts, the Applicants are asking the Court to sit as an appellate court. The Respondent State further argues that, in respect of both Applications, the Court has no jurisdiction to quash convictions rendered by domestic courts or set aside sentences or even to order the release of convicts from prison. In support of its arguments, the Respondent State referred to the Court’s jurisprudence as expounded in Alex Thomas v. Tanzania and Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi. * 26. In his Reply, the First Applicant contends that the Court has jurisdiction insofar as he alleges violations of “human rights under the Charter to which the Respondent State is committed to respecting and protecting.” He further contends that he has presented for the Court’s consideration alleged violations of his fundamental rights and “not an appeal as referred to by the Respondent state representatives.” 27. The Second Applicant, for his part, submits that the Court has jurisdiction “to hear all cases submitted to it as this application is made under Article 3(1), (2) of the African Charter and article 3 and 27 of the protocol to the charter.” *** 28. 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 8