Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned. 2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 15. On the basis of Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must, in every application, preliminarily, conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any.4 16. In the present Application, the Court observes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will first consider the said objection (A) before examining other aspects of jurisdiction (B), if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 17. First, the Respondent State avers that this Court is not vested with the power to review or evaluate evidentiary matters adduced during the Applicant’s trial before the domestic Courts. Rather, it contends that evidentiary matters should be dealt with by the domestic courts as provided by the Magistrates Courts’ Act, CAP 11 R.E 2002. The fact that it has ratified the Charter, and the Protocol, as well as deposited the Declaration accepting the Court’s competence does not confer jurisdiction on the court to examine alleged evidentiary discrepancies during the trial in domestic proceedings. Furthermore, every individual who is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania should not automatically challenge the decision before the Court. 18. Second, the Respondent State further submits that the Applicant appealed the decision of the District Court to the High Court and finally to the Court of Appeal, which considered the records of the District Court and dismissed his appeal. As such, it asserts that this Court cannot be moved to sit again 4 Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 6