the fact that his rights were violated but failed to indicate how the violation was made. * 21. The Applicant did not make submissions to dispute the Respondent State’s claims. *** 22. The Court recalls that under 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.6 23. The Court emphasises that its material jurisdiction is thus predicated on the Applicant’s allegation of violations of human rights protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State. 7 In the instant matter the Applicant alleges the violation of the right to equal protection of the law and of the right to dignity, protected under Articles 3(2) and 5 of the Charter, respectively. 24. Specifically with regard to the objection about the Court exercising appellate jurisdiction, the Court recalls its established jurisprudence that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.8 However, “this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned”.9 The Court would, therefore, not be sitting as an appellate court if it were to consider the Applicant’s allegations. 6 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 18. Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 28; Armand Guéhi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477 § 33; Elisamehe v. Tanzania, ibid, § 18. 8 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) 1 AfCLR 190, § 14. 9 Kennedy Ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 48, § 26; Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, § 33. 7 7