0013?? State's actions, which they believe are wrong. The Applicants aver that the Respondent State's reliance on lhe Mtingwi case is not relevant and that this Court should rather, in the present case, apply its case-law in the matter of Atex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania. 24.Ihe Court reiterates its established case-law that it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to claims already examined by national courts.l Having said that, the Court considers that, while it does not have appellate jurisdiction to uphold or reverse judgments of domestic courts, it retains the power to assess the propriety of related proceedings with international human rights standards.2 25.|n the instant case, the Respondent State's objection is that the Application is asking this Court to evaluate the evidence and review the sentencing of the Applicants. The Court considers that the Applicants are requesting for an assessment of whether the manner in which domestic courts handled their case was in line with international standards, which the Respondent State is obligated to protect.3 As such, the issues raised fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. 26. The Respondent State's objection in this regard is consequenfly dismissed 1 See Application No. 001i2015. Judgment ol 07t'122018 (Merits and Reparations), Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania, S 33. See also A/ex Thomas v. lJnited Repubtic of Tanzania (Merils) (2015) 1 AfcLR 465, SS 60-65; and Apptication No. 006/201s. Judgment of 23rc3n0ft (Merits), A/guza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. United Republic of Tanzania, $ 35. 2 See Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $ 33. See also Application No. 024/201S. Judgment ot 0711212018 (Merits), Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania, $ 29; A/ex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), $ 130; Mohamed Abubakari v. united Repubtic of Tanzania (Merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 599, S 26; and, Emesl Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (Admissibility) (2013) 1 AfCLR 190, $ 14. 3 See Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. Tanzania, $ 3l t0