001371 . Objection on the ground that this Gourt is acting as a court of first instance 27.The Respondent state submits that the Applicants are also calling for the court to sit as a court of first instance with respect to the allegation that they were denied the right to be heard. The Respondent state contends that this allegation was never raised before domestic courts and is being considered for the first time before this Court. 28.The Applicants, in their Response, contend that they are asking the court to assess the conduct of the Respondent state through its organs in the light of international instruments to which it committed itself. 29.The court considers that as it has consistenfly held in its earlier judgments, it has material jurisdiction by virtue of Article 3 of the protocol so long as the Application alleges violations of rights protected in the charter or any other relevant international instrument to which the Respondent state is a party.a court notes that in the present case, the Applicants allege the violation of their rights to life, to dignity, and to a fair trial protected under Articles 4, 5 and 30. The 7(1) of the Charter respectively. 31.As a consequence of the foregoing, the court dismisses the Respondent state's objection on this point and finds that is has material jurisdiction to consider the present Application. a See Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $ 31. See also Werema Wangoko Werema and Another v. Tanzania (Merits), g 29. see atso Nguza viking and Johnson Nguza v. Tinzania, g 36; and Peter Joseph chacha v. united Repubtic of ranzania (Merits) (2014) 1 AfcLR 398, 114. S l1