000837 A. Objections to material jurisdiction 19. The Respondent State raises two objections in relation to the Court's material jurisdiction. Firstly, that the Court is being asked to sit as a court of first instance, and, secondly, that the Court is being asked to assume appellate jurisdiction. i. Objection on the ground that the Court is being asked to sit as a court of first instance 20. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant, by challenging the constitutionality of his sentence and claiming that it is in violation of Article 13(6) of its Constitution, is inviting the Court to address a matter that has never been considered in the domestic courts and, therefore, inviting the Court to sit as a court of first instance. 21. The Respondent State submits that this Application is the first time that the Applicant is challenging the constitutionality of his sentence under the Minimum Sentences Act. 22. The Applicant submits that this Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the allegations in the Application raise violations of the Charter. The Applicant also avers that this Court has jurisdiction ratione personae as he is a citizen of the Respondent State which has ratified the Protocol and filed the Declaration under Article 34(6) thereof. The Applicant supports his submission by referring the Court to its judgmenlin Frank David Omary and Others v. tJnited Republic of Tanzania. 23. In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicant's allegations directly relate to rights guaranteed in the Charter. The Court further notes that the Applicant is not asklng the Court to sit as a court of first instance but rather invoking the Court's jurisdiction under the Charter to determine if the conduct that he is complaining of is a violation of the Charter. 6 e