Court of Appeal. compounded The Applicant maintains that these delays were 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 Tanzania, and the Respondent Republic of State has ratified the Protocol and filed a declaration allowing direct access for individuals to file cases before this Court. 44. TheApplicant further asserts that, the Court has held a similar view on its jurisdictional requirements in Application Number 001/2012 Frank David Omary and Others v The United Republic of Tanzania and Application Number 003/2012 Peter Joseph Chacha v The United Republic of Tanzania. Jurisdiction ratione materiae 45. Court The Court considers that the Respondent's objection that ‘the 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 violated are protected instrument ratified jurisdiction over the long as the rights allegedly by the Charter or any other human by the matter. State The concerned, the Court will have Court first elaborated A ee rights on this in ku 19 AIC