27. The Respondent State further alleges that by asking this Court to quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and set him at liberty, the Applicant is seeking to have the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania overturned. According to the Respondent State, by examining these allegations, this Court would usurp the prerogative of the Court of Appeal, which duly concluded and finalised matters of evidence. 28.ln his Reply, the Applicant contends that this Court is competent to deal with the matter as provided by relevant provisions of the Charter, the Protocol and case law of the Court. 29. At the public hearing, the Applicant reiterated the arguments made in his written pleadings on all aspects of jurisdiction. In response to the Respondent State's oral pleadings, the Applicant submitted that the Court is not being asked to act as an appellate court but to adjudicate on the fairness of the judicial process in light of the rights guaranteed in the Charter. In support of that submission, the Applicant referred to previous judgments of the Court including in the cases of Alex Thomas,1 Frank Omary,2 and Kijiji fsiaga 3 involving the Respondent State. 30. On its part, the Intervening State submits that "the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to deal with the Application" given that the Respondent State ratified the Charter, and the Protocol, deposited the required declaration and the Applicant alleges the violation of rights protected by various instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. *** 1 Application No. 005/2013. Judgment of 20111/15, Alex Thomas v. Uniled Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Alex Thomas v. Tanzania'). 2 Application No. 001/2012. Judgment of 03106/16, Frank David Omary and Olhers v. United Republic of Tanzania. 3 Application No. 032/2015. Judgment of 21103/18, Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania. 9