21. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges the violation of the right to defence and the right to a fair trial protected under the Charter to which the Respondent State is a party. 22. The Court further reiterates that, while it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction with respect to decisions of domestic courts, it is empowered by the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Protocol to ensure that domestic proceedings are in compliance with international standards set out in the Charter and any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.4 23. From the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection to jurisdiction and finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear the Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 24. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding its personal, temporal or territorial jurisdiction. Even so, it must satisfy itself that these aspects have been met. 25. The Court notes, with respect to its personal jurisdiction that, as earlier stated in paragraph 2 of this Judgment, the Respondent State is a party to the Protocol and on 29 March 2010, it deposited with the African Union Commission, the Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. Subsequently, on 21 November 2019, it deposited an instrument withdrawing its Declaration. 26. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that, the withdrawal of a Declaration does not apply retroactively and only takes effect one (1) year after the date of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 017/2017, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), §§ 21. 4 Kenedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 7