15. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.”5 16. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 17. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises two objections to its material jurisdiction. The Court will first examine these objections before considering other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objections to material jurisdiction 18. Firstly, the Respondent State argues that this Application is calling upon the Court to sit as an appellate court and deliberate on matters of evidence and procedure already finalised by its Court of Appeal, and that this is not within the mandate and jurisdiction of the Court. 19. The Respondent State further argues that all the allegations raised before the Court were raised as grounds for appeal before its Court of Appeal. It further submits that the allegation with regard to the death penalty was already concluded by the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal in the case of Mbushuu alias Dominic Mnyaroje and Another v. The Republic [1995] TLR 97, where it was “held that the imposition of the death penalty is not arbitrary, hence a lawful law that is saved by Article 30(2) of the Constitution” of the Respondent State. It is for these reasons that the Respondent State asserts that the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate the Application and that the Application should be dismissed. 20. Secondly, the Respondent State claims that the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief of releasing the Applicant. The Respondent State submits that the relief sought by the Applicant to be released from 5 Rule 39(1), Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 7