V. JURISDICTION 16.1n accordance with Rule 39(1) of its Rules "[t]he Court shatt conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction..." A. Objections to material jurisdiction 17. The Respondent State raises objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, claiming that by asking this Court to re-examine the evidence adduced and examined by its courts, the Applicant is requesting the Court to sit as an appellate court, for which this Court has no jurisdiction. ln this regard, the Respondent State cites the Court's decision in Application No. 001/2013 Ernest Francis tMtingwi v. Republic of Malawi. 18. The Applicant, challenging the Respondent State's claim, asserts that the Court has jurisdiction whenever there is a violation of the provisions of the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments, to review the judgment passed by the domestic courts, re-examine the evidence, quash the sentence and acquit him. To this end, the Applicant cites the Court's Judgment in Application No. 00512013 - Alex Thomas v. united Republic of Tanzania. 19.This Court reiterates its position ". ,O,rr"d in Ernes t Mtingwi v Republic of Malawil that it is not an appeal court with respect to decisions rendered by national courts. However, as it underscored in its Judgment of 20 November, 2015 in Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzama, this situation does not preclude it 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 party.2 1 Application No. 001/2013. Decision ol15t3l2O13, Ernest Francis Mtingwiv Republic of Matawi, para 14. 2 Application No.005/2013, Judgment of 201111201s, Atex Thomas v tJnited Republic of Tanzania (Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment), para. 130 and Application No. oo7t2o1 3. Judgment of 3/6/2016, Mohamed Abubakari v united Republic of ranzania (Mohamed Abubakariv Tanzania J udg ment), para. 5 4