21. Pursuant to Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court “shall preliminarily ascertain its jurisdiction … in accordance with the Charter, the Protocol, and these Rules.” 22. Based on the above provisions, the Court must, conduct a preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and dispose of any objections, if any. 23. The Court notes that in the present Application, the Court observes that the Respondent State objects to its material jurisdiction. The Court will thus, first, consider the said objection before examining other aspects of its jurisdiction, if necessary. A. Objection to material jurisdiction 24. The Respondent State asserts that both Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules only accord the Court jurisdiction to deal with cases or disputes concerning the application and interpretation of the Charter, Protocol or any other relevant human rights Instrument ratified by the State concerned. It submits that the Court is not vested with the powers to quash a conviction delivered by domestic Courts nor does it have the appellate jurisdiction to uphold or reverse judgments of domestic courts merely depending on the manner in which evidentiary issues were considered by such courts. The Respondent State submits that the instant Application requires the Court to sit as a court of appeal on matters definitively resolved by its national courts. 25. In support of its submissions, the Respondent State cites the Court’s decisions in Werema Wangoko Werema and Waisiri Wangoko Werema v. Tanzania and Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Malawi. * 6