26. The Applicant maintains that his Application consistent with Article 3 of the Protocol, which allows the Court to receive and consider human rights cases related to the interpretation of the provisions of the Charter. *** 27. The Court notes that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine “all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and Application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights Instruments ratified by the States concerned.” 28. Regarding the Respondent State’s contention that the Court is being called to act as an appellate court, the Court recalls its established case law that it does not have an appellate jurisdiction vis-à-vis the decisions of domestic courts.3 However, this does not preclude it from examining the relevant proceedings of the domestic courts to determine whether they are conducted in accordance with the requisite standards set out in the Charter and other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.4 In the present Application, the Court finds that it would not be sitting as an appellate court by examining the allegations made by the Applicant. 29. As for the contention that the Court is not vested with powers to quash a conviction delivered by domestic courts, the Court recalls Article 27 of the Protocol which directs it to make appropriate orders to remedy any violation of human rights. Resultantly, the Court may order the quashing of a conviction if this amounts to appropriate redress for human rights violations. The Court, therefore, dismisses in the contention by the Respondent State on this point. 30. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection and holds that it has material jurisdiction to consider the Application. 3 Ernest Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. Kenedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26. 4 7