000338 26. ln the instant Application, the Court notes from the Respondent State's submission that the Respondent State disputes only the Court's materialjurisdiction. However, the Court shall also satisfy itself that it has personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 27 .The Respondent State disputes the jurisdiction of the Court by submitting that the instant Application contains legal and factual issues which were conclusively determined by its domestic courts. According to the Respondent State, the Protocol does not vest the Court with the power to adjudicate on issues involving o matters of law and evidence by placing itself as an appellate court; however, in the instant Application, the Court is being requested to make determination on issues that would require it to sit as such. ln this regard, the Respondent State indicates three allegations the assessment of which would require the Court to sit as an appellate court: "(i)the visual identification evidence which was used to convict the Applicants was fabricated; (ii) the witnesses who testified against the Applicants contradicted themselves"; and (iii)the Applicants were isolated during the Courts' procedures and decisions" o 28.The Applicants do not dispute the Respondent State's assertion that the Court is not vested with appellate jurisdiction. Nevertheless, they argue that their Application relates to the violation of human rights protected by the Charter on which the Court has unlimited jurisdiction. The Applicants, citing the jurisprudence of the Courtl, aver that the Court has the power to receive and consider matters, including those relating to decisions of domestic courts and determine whether the 1 Application No. 005/2013. Judgment of 2011112015, Atex Thomas (hereinafter referred to as "Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment"). v. lJnited Repubtic of I ry Tanzania,