0008 3 'j 24. The court recalls that it has consistenfly held that so long as the Application alleges violations of rights protected in the Charter or any other international instrument to which the Respondent State is a party it possesses jurisdiction. 1 on this point, the court recalls that in Armand Guehi v lJnited Republic of Tanzania it expressed itself thus "...with respect to whether it is called to act as court of first instance, [the court is of the view] that, by virtue of Article 3 of the Protocol, it has material jurisdiction so long as the Application alleges violations of provisions of international instruments to which the Respondent state is a party."2 25. since the Applicant is alleging violation of the charter, to which the Respondent State is a party, the Court finds that it will not be sitting as a court of first instance in adjudicating on the Applicant's allegations and, accordingly, dismisses the Respondent State's objection in this regard. ii. objection on the ground that the court is being requested to asaume appellate jurisdiction 26. The Respondent State avers that the Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the present Application since the Applicant is asking it to sit as an appellate court and deliberate on matters already concluded by the Court of Appeal. 27. The Respondent state cites, in support of its contentions, the judgment of the Court in Emest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Matawiwhere the Court held that it does not have any appellate jurisdicilon to receive and consider appeals in respect of cases already decided upon by domestic and/or regional courts. 28. The Applicant submits that the court has jurisdiction as per Article 3 of the Protocol. The Applicant relies on the court's decision in Alex Thomas v. united Republic of Tanzania to justify the admissibility of the Application. 1 See, Application No. 025/2016. Judgment ot 28tO3t2O1S (Merits and Reparations), Kenedy lvan v. United Republic of Tanzania $ 20-21. Application No. 006/2015. Judgment of 23103/2018'(Merits), Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and.Johnson Nguza (papi Kocha) v. tJnited Republic of Tanzanrb g36. 2 Application No. 001/2015. Judgment of 7111t2019 (Merits and Reparations,f g 3.1. 7 /d*