supposed to serve as he was charged under Section 285 of the Penal Code (Cap. 16 RE 2002) and this, in violation of Article 13(6)(c) of Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 24.The Respondent State also submits 19772. that this Court does not have the jurisdiction of an appellate court to hear issues of evidence and procedure that its Court of Appeal has finalised. In this regard, the Respondent State particularly points out to the following allegations: i. Thatin Criminal Case No. 95 of 2003, the Courts erred by relying on the evidence of identification in the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 even though they failed to describe the Applicant, in contravention of Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977. ii. That the testimonies of PW2 and PWS on identification were uncertain given that the said testimonies were not corroborated by an independent witness, which is in violation of equality before the law’. 25.Refuting the Respondent State's contention, the Applicant asserts that, although this Court is not an appellate court, it has jurisdiction to hear any dispute pertaining to violation of the provisions of the Charter or any other relevant human examine rights instrument, to evaluate decisions of national courts, re- evidence, set aside a sentence and order acquittal of a victim of human rights violation. 26. The Applicant accordingly prays the Court to dismiss the Respondent State's arguments, submitting that this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case by virtue of the provisions of the Charter and of the Protocol. In this regard, he contends that the Court's jurisprudence on this point is clear, in reference to its ? Reproduced in extenso in the Respondent State’s submissions 3 Reproduced in extenso in the Respondent State’s submissions 10