19. The Court further observes that pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, it “shall conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction […] in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol and these Rules.” 20. In view of the foregoing, the Court must conduct an assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. 21. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to its material jurisdiction. The Court will first examine this objection before considering other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 22. The Respondent State argues that this Court has no appellate jurisdiction on matters of fact and law which have been definitively determined by the Court of Appeal, such as the identification of the Applicant and credibility of witnesses. The Respondent State, therefore, argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to quash the conviction, set aside sentences and order the release of the Applicant from prison. * 23. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s objection and asserts that the Court has full jurisdiction over this matter. *** 24. The Court emphasises that its material jurisdiction is predicated on the Applicant’s allegation of violations of human rights protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.7 In 7 Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 28; Armand Guéhi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 33; Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 7