i.
Objection based on the allegation that the Court is being called to
act as a court of first instance
31. The Court is of the view, with respect to whether it is called to act as a court of first
instance, that, by virtue of Article 3 of the Protocol, it has material jurisdiction so long
as "the Application alleges violations of provisions of international instruments to which the
Respondent State is a party"4 In the instant matter, the Applicant alleges violations of
rights guaranteed in the Charter.
32. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent State's objection on this point.
ii. Objection based on the allegation that the Court is being called to
assume appellate jurisdiction
33. Regarding the question whether it would be exercising appellate jurisdiction by
examining certain claims, which the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had already
determined, this Court reiterates its position that it is not an appellate court with
respect to decisions of national courts. 5 However, as it has previously held in the
case of Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, the Court restates that
the fact that it is not an appellate court vis-a-vis domestic courts does not preclude it
from assessing whether domestic proceedings were conducted in accordance with
international standards set out in the Charter and other international human rights
instruments ratified by the State concerned 6 In the present case, the Applicant
alleges the violation of his rights guaranteed in the Charter, which is a human rights
instrument duly ratified by the Respondent State as earlier recalled.
34. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection on this
point.
See Application No. 006/2015. Judgment of 23/03/18, Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi
Kocha) v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v.
Tanzania'), § 36.
5 See Application No. 001/2013. Decision of 15/03/13, Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Matawi, § 14;
Atex Thomas v. Tanzania, §§ 60-65; and Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v. Tanzania, op. cit., §. 35.
6 See for instance, Application No. 00712013. Judgment of 03/06/2016, Mohamed Abubakari v. United
Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania'), § 29; and Application No.
003/2012. Judgment of 28103/14, Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 114.
4
10