order for release in the case of Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania. *** 21. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it is competent to hear all cases brought before it, whenever they relate to allegations of violations of the rights under the Charter or any other human rights instrument to which the Respondent State is a party.4 22. The Court notes that the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction is framed in two limbs: first, whether the Court has jurisdiction to re-examine matters decided by domestic courts, and second, the extent to which the Court has jurisdiction to quash and set aside the Applicant’s conviction and sentence imposed in accordance with the applicable laws of the Respondent State. * 23. With regard to the first limb of the objection, the Court reiterates its established case-law that “although it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts,5 this does not preclude it from examining proceedings of the said courts in order to determine whether they were conducted in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.”6 24. Therefore, in the present Application, the Court would not be sitting as an appellate court, if it were to examine the allegations made by the Applicant even though they relate to the assessment of evidentiary issues during the proceedings that led to the conviction of the Applicant. Consequently, this limb of the objection is dismissed. 4 Umalo Mussa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 031/2016, Judgment on 13 June 2023, § 19. 5 Umalo Mussa v. Tanzania, supra, § 21; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018), 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 6 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33. 7