2. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide. 20. The Court further notes that, in terms of Rule 39(1) of the Rules: “The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction ...” 21.On the basis of the above-cited provisions, the Court must, in every application, conduct preliminary assessment of its jurisdiction and dispose of objections thereto, if any. A. Objections to material jurisdiction 22. The Respondent State submits that this Court is being asked to adjudicate as a court of first instance on certain issues, and as an appellate court on other issues already decided by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 23. The Respondent State further argues that Article 3(1) of the Protocol does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to adjudicate issues of law and evidence raised before it for the first time. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the Court is being asked to pronounce on matters that would oblige it to sit as a trial court, whereas remedies are available at national level that the Applicant could still exercise. In this regard, the Respondent State mentions that the following three allegations have been raised before this Court for the first time: i. That it took nearly ten (10) years from June 2007, to deliver the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2006 and this constitutes a violation of Article 7(d) (sic) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; ii, That he was denied his right to legal representation in the first and second appellate Courts, in breach of Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; ili. That he was illegally sentenced to serve a thirty years sentence in Criminal Case No. 95/2003 instead of fifteen (15) years, which he was 9