00083 0 27. The Applicant refutes the Respondent State's argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction, maintaining that it has jurisdiction over an Application whenever there is a violation of the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments. Therefore, the Court is empowered to review decisions rendered by domestic courts, assess the evidence, and set aside the sentence and acquit the victim, as was the case in its decision in Application No. OOS12O13 - Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania. *** 28. On the first objection of the Respondent State that the Court is being asked to act as an appellate court, this Court reiterates its position in Ernest Mtingwi v. Republic of MalawP that it is not an appeal court with respect to decisions rendered by national courts. However, this does not preclude the Court from examining whether the procedures before national courts are in accordance with international standards set out in the Charter or other applicable human rights instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party3. ln the instant case, this Court has jurisdiction to determine whetherthe domestic courts'proceedings with respect to the Applicant's criminal charges that form the basis of his Application before this Court, have been conducted in accordance with the international standards set out in the Charter. 29. Furthermore, concerning the allegation that the Application calls for the Court to sit as a court of first instance, the Court notes that since the Application alleges violations of the provisions of the human rights international instruments to which the Respondent State is a Party, it has material jurisdiction by virtue of Article 3(1) of the Protocol, which provides that the jurisdiction of the Court "sha1 extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned." 2 Application No. 001/2013. Decision ot 15t3t2013, Ernest Francis Mtingwiv. Repubtic of Malawi, para 14. 3 Application No. 005/2013. Judgment of 20t11t201 5, Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "A/ex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment"), para. 130 and Application No. 00712013. Judgment of 316t2016, Mohamed Abubakari v. United of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania Judgment") n No.032/2015. KUU| lsiaga v Tanzania, paras 34 and 35. w "\-- \ a tr