Court of Appeal. The Applicant maintains that these delays were compounded by the dilatory conduct of the state in providing the record of proceedings of the trial courts which hampered his ability to file his appeal. The Applicant maintains that this also violated his right to receive information and his right to freedom of expression. 43. The Applicant also argues that, the Court has jurisdiction ratione personae and that he is entitled to file an Application before the Court on the basis that he is a citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Respondent State has ratified the Protocol and filed a declaration allowing direct access for individuals to file cases before this Court. 44. The Applicant further asserts that, the Court has held a similar view on its jurisdictional requirements in Application Number 00112012 Frank David Omary and Others v The United Republic of Tanzania and Application Number 00312012 Peter Joseph Chacha v The United Republic of Tanzania. Jurisdiction ratione materiae 45. The Court considers that the Respondent's objection that "the Court lacks jurisdiction because the Applicant improperly cites Articles 5 and 34(6) of the Protocol and Rule 33 of the Rules of Court and that the Articles only provide him standing before the Court" lacks merit. The Court finds that as long as the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned, the Court will have jurisdiction over the matter. The Court first elaborated on this in 19