A. ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 23. ln accordance with Rule 39 (1) of the Rules, "the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction..." i) Objection with respect to the material jurisdiction of the Couri 24.The Respondent argues that the Applicant prays the Court to sit as an appellate court or a supreme court whereas it is not withln its power. 25.According to the Respondent, Article 3 of the Protocol does not provide this Court with the jurisdiction to adjudicate over matters raised by the Applicant before the national couds, revise the Judgments of these courts, evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion 26,The Respondent maintains that the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, in its Judgment in Criminal Appeal Case No. 38/2006, examined all the allegations raised by the Applicant and that this Court (African Court) should respect the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 27.The Applicant for his part refutes this assertion. Citing this Court's jurisprudence in Alex Thomas and Josepft Peter Chacha against the United Republic of Tanzanla, the Applicant contends that this Couft has jurisdiction as long as there are allegations of violation of human rights. 28. The Court reiterates its position that it is not an appeal court with respect to the decisions rendered by the national courtsl. However, as it underscored in its Judgment in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, and Mohamed Abubakai v. United Republic of Tanzama, this does not preclude it from ascertaining whether the procedures before national courts are in 1 See Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi(Application No. 001/2013), Judgment of 15 March 2013, paragraph 14; lt r .4; ! L,.+ .t : _)- ,/\ -l ,da \l 8 ,rt-\ ,l,l' -1-/ .,-'t- .t /