A. Objection to material jurisdiction 22. The Respondent State raises an objection to the material jurisdiction of the Court to assess the evidence adduced in the course of the Applicant’s trial and appeal. 23. The Respondent State submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to act as an appellate Court and as such, it lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter. 24. Furthermore, it avers that the Court has no jurisdiction to quash and set aside the Applicant’s conviction and sentence, since both were upheld by the Court of Appeal, its highest Court,. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that the Court has no power to order the release of the Applicant from prison. * 25. The Applicant asserts that the material jurisdiction of the Court extends to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, the Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the state concerned. Citing the case of Isiaga v. Tanzania, the Applicant argues that the Court exercises its jurisdiction over an application as long as the subject matter of the application involves alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State. 26. The Applicant avers that the subject matter of the Application involves alleged violations of the rights protected by the Charter, namely Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and as such, this Court has material jurisdiction to hear the matter. *** 27. The Court recalls that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine “all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation 8