rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.4 29. In these consolidated Applications, the Court notes that the Respondent State’s objections to its material jurisdiction invoke three issues, first, that the Court is not a first instance court, second, that the Court is not an appellate court and, third, that the Court has no jurisdiction to quash convictions and order release of a convict. The Court will address each of these contentions separately. 30. In relation to the argument that the Court would be sitting as a court of first instance, the Court recalls its established jurisprudence to the effect that, under Article 3 of the Protocol, it has material jurisdiction so long as the Application before it raises allegations of violation of human rights protected under the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned.5 Since the present consolidated Applications raise alleged violations of Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter, the Court finds that it would not be sitting as a first instance court in considering these allegations but would only discharging its mandate to interpret and apply the Charter and other human rights instruments. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s submissions. 31. As regards the contention that the Court would be exercising appellate jurisdiction by examining certain claims which were already determined by the Respondent State’s domestic courts, the Court reiterates its position that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to the decisions of domestic courts.6 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 against standards 4 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 5 Jibu Amir Mussa and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, §§ 18-19. 6 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. 9