decisions in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania* and Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania.° see 27. The Court notes that the Respondent State's objection suggests that this Court i does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Application before it, since it is neither a court of first instance nor an appellate court with respect to decisions | of national courts. 28.As regards the objection that the Court lacks jurisdiction since it is not a court of first instance, the Court recalls that it has jurisdiction as long as the rights alleged by Applicant as having been violated fall under a bundle of rights and guarantees that form part of cases that had been heard by national courts®. The Court notes in the instant case that the matters at issue relate to the identification of the Applicant by two witnesses, the absence of independent witnesses and the alibi defence. 29. The Court considers that these issues fall within the bundle of the rights and guarantees, and consequently dismisses the Respondent State's objection on this point. 30.As for the Respondent State's allegation that the Court is being asked to sit as an appellate jurisprudence, court, the Court notes that, pursuant it has consistently held that, when to its established examining cases brought before it, it cannot be considered as exercising appellate jurisdiction in respect of decisions of national courts.” 4Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 130. SPeter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (jurisdiction) (2014) 1 AfCLR , 398, §114. ® Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) §§ 60-65. 7 Emest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (admissibility) (2013) 1 A{CLR 190, § 14. See also Kenedy ivan v. United Republic of Tanzania, A{CHPR, Application No.025/2016 - Judgment of 28 March 2019 (merits and reparations), § 26 ; Armand Guéhi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) 41 |