30. The Court reaffirms that, in line with its well-established case-law, it
possesses the competence to review pertinent proceedings before
domestic courts to assess their conformity with the standards outlined in the
Charter or any other instrument ratified by the State concerned.4 Such
review does not entail acting as a court of first instance. Therefore, the
Respondent State’s objection regarding the Court potentially acting as a
court of first instance is hereby dismissed.
31. The Court further recalls its established jurisprudence, “that it is not an
appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.”5 However, “...
this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national
courts in order to determine whether they are compatible with the standards
set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the
State concerned.”6 In doing so, this Court would not be assuming the role
of an appellate court when examining the allegations presented by the
Applicant. Accordingly, the Respondent State’s objection in this regard is
dismissed.
32. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has material jurisdiction to
consider the present Application.
B. Other aspects of jurisdiction
33. The Applicant argues that the Court has personal, temporal and territorial
jurisdiction to consider his Application. He elaborates that the Respondent
State is party to the Charter and the Protocol. Furthermore, the violations of
his rights are continuous in nature as he remains convicted, subject to the
death sentence and incarcerated on death row as a result of the breaches
4
Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14;
Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 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.
5 Mtingwi v. Malawi (jurisdiction), ibid, § 14.
6 Ivan v. Tanzania (merits), ibid, § 26; Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 33; Viking
and Nguza v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 35.
9