conviction and sentence. It further avers that the conviction and sentence were based on the Respondent State’s Penal Code, Article 285 and 286 for the offence of burglary and armed robbery. Citing the Courts jurisprudence,4 the Respondent State contends that the Applicant has not demonstrated specific or compelling circumstances to warrant an order for release by this Court. 20. The Respondent State, further citing the Courts jurisprudence,5 submits that this Court has held that it does not have any appellate jurisdiction to reverse and consider appeals in respect of cases already decided upon by the domestic or regional courts. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that to quash the conviction and sentence would require a re-appraisal of matters of evidence and procedure already concluded by the Court of Appeal, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, which has also held in a number of decisions6 that its mandate is to examine compliance with international human rights standards. 21. The Respondent State avers that this Court would be deliberating on matters of evidence such as the doctrine of recent possession and visual identification, which were already finalised by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania on page 6 of the Judgment. Moreover, it avers that this Court has already ruled,7 at paragraph 89 of the Judgment that matters of identification are best left to domestic courts. * 22. The Applicant avers that this Court is clothed with jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter because the violation alleged against the Respondent State concern rights protected by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Protocol. 4 Application No. 005/2013, Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 157. Application No. 001/2013, Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi. 6 Application No. 003/2015, Kennedy Owino and Others v. The United Republic of Tanzania, §§ 37-38. 7 Application No. 005/2013, Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 89. 5 7