A. Objections to material jurisdiction 18. The Respondent State avers that by raising evidential issues previously resolved by domestic courts, the Applicant is asking this Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction on matters already concluded and finalised by its Court of Appeal, which is the highest court. It is the Respondent State’s contention that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules,6 this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider a matter after the Court of Appeal has decisively concluded on the same. 19. The Respondent State further argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to set aside the sentence meted against the Applicant, remove him from death row, and set him free as he prays. 20. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s submissions and contends that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26(1)(a) of the Rules7 since his Application involves alleged violations of human rights protected by the Charter. *** 21. The Court recalls that by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, it has jurisdiction to examine any application submitted to it provided that the rights of which a violation is alleged are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.8 22. Regarding the contention that the Court would be exercising appellate jurisdiction by examining certain claims which have already been determined by the Respondent State’s domestic courts, this Court reiterates 6 Rule 29, Rules of Court, 2020. Rule 29(1)(a), Rules of Court, 2020. 8 Matoke Mwita and Masero Mkami v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 007/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (judgment), § 24; Marthine Christian Msuguri v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 052/2016, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), §§ 23-27 and Kalebi Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. 7 7