Respondent State’s contention that the mandate of this Court is to make declaratory orders and not reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeal. 26. The Respondent State further submits that this Court is not a court of first instance to determine issues which were never considered by the domestic courts and are being raised by the Applicant for the first time before this Court. It follows, the Respondent State avers, that this Court should find that it lacks jurisdiction to determine them. * 27. The Applicant asserts that the material jurisdiction of the Court extends to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the state concerned. He argues that the Court exercises its jurisdiction over an application as long as the subject matter thereof involves alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State. 28. According to the Applicant, the Court’s material jurisdiction is established with regard to his Application since the subject matter of the Application involves alleged violations of the rights protected by the Charter, namely, the right to equal protection, to life, to dignity and to a fair trial for which the Court has material jurisdiction. *** 29. The Court notes 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.3 3 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 8