21. The Respondent State concludes that the Court lacks material jurisdiction to hear the Application. * 22. In reply, the Applicant submits that the objection be dismissed, arguing that it is not a question of the Court reviewing the legality of a domestic decision, but rather of finding a manifest violation of human rights contained in a judicial act. He asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to assess whether the order dismissing the case was made in accordance with the requirements of the Charter and any other international human rights instrument, which are an integral part of domestic law and are therefore binding on the Respondent State’s courts. 23. He further contends that the Court has jurisdiction to ascertain if an amnesty law is consistent with the international conventions ratified by the Respondent State. *** 24. The Court recalls that the Respondent State advances two arguments in support of its objection to material jurisdiction, namely, (1) the Court is not an appellate body in relation to its domestic courts and (2) it cannot annul the amnesty law. i. 25. Objection based on the Court not being an appellate court The Court reiterates its established jurisprudence that it is not a court of appeal against decisions given by national courts.5 However, “this does not preclude it from examining the relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or in any other human instrument ratified by the State concerned”.6 5 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 6 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 130. 8