court of first instance to consider matters which were never raised before the municipal courts. 21. In this regard, the Court recalls that Article 3 of the Protocol grants it jurisdiction to consider any application filed before it provided that the Applicant alleges the violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter, the Protocol or any other human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State.5 In the present Application, the Applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the Charter. It can therefore not be said that by considering this Application, the Court would be sitting as a court of first instance. 22. Regarding the objection that it is not an appellate criminal court, the Court recalls, its established jurisprudence, “that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.6 However “... this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned.”7 As such, this Court would not be sitting as an appellate court in the present Application, if it were to examine the Applicant’s allegations. 23. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and consequently finds that it has material jurisdiction to hear this Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 24. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not contest its personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction, and nothing on the record shows that it 5 Daud Sumano Kilagela v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 017/2018, Judgment of 3 September 2024 (merits and reparations), § 7. 6 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 7 Kenedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 247, § 33; Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 35. 7