000942 Charter, the Protocol and any other human rights instruments ratified by the concerned State. Accordingly, the Respondent State submits that the Court is not afforded jurisdiction to sit in the instant Application as a court of first instance or an appellate court. The Applicant submits that his Application concerns the violations of 18. fundamental human rights which is within the jurisdiction of this court. 19. The Court has held that Article 3 of the Protocol gives it the power to examine an Application submitted before it as long as the subject matter of the Application involves alleged violations of rights protected by the Charter, the Protocol or any other international human rights instruments ratified by a Respondent State.l 20. The Court reiterates its well established jurisprudence that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.z However, the Court has also from examining relevant emphasised, that, "this does not preclude it 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 inslruments ratified by the State concerned."3 rApptication No. 003/2012. Ruling of 28103/2014 (Admissibility), PeterJoseph Chagha v United Republic of ianzania, S 114, Application N;. 005/2013. Judgment ol 2011'112015 (Merits), Alex Thomas v. United AepiOtic of fZnzani,ia,'lhereinafter referred to as i4lex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits)), S 45, Application No. OSilZOf O. Judgment oi 28 rc3n}1g (Merits). Oscar Josiah v United Republic Tanzania (hereinafter'Oscar Josiah v Tanzania (Merits)'), S 24. 2 Apptication No. OfitlZOtg. Oecision of 15t0312013 (Jurisdiction), Emest Fnncis Mtingwi v Republic of Maiiwi,S 14, Apptication No. 025/2016. Judgmentof 2810312019 (Merits and Reparations), Kenedy lvan v Unitea-Aepubtb of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as " Kenedy lvan v Tanzania") $ 26; Application No. Tanzania O2AI2O1S. Judgment ol 07t11t1'8 (Merits and Reparations), Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Johnson (Babu and Viking Seya) (Merits), Nguza 23i03/18 of Judgment S 33; Applicati;n No. 006/2015. Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. lJnited Republic of Tanzania $ 35. g 130. See also Application No. 010/2015, Judgment ot 2810912017 "Atex inoimas v Tanzania (Meriis), Repubtic of Tanzania (hereinafter ref919_d lo_as "Christopher Jonas (Merits), Christopher Jonas'v. lJnited 003/2014, Judgment ol 2411112017 (Merits), lngabire Victoire No. i Tanz'ania (Ueiits)"), S 28, Apptication umuhoza v .' AepuOtic nfftication No. 6f Rwanda (hereinafter referred to as "lngabire tJmuhoza v Rwanda (Merits)"), $ 52,. of 03/06/2013 (Merits), Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of OO7/2013, Judgment 6 -'e.-