jurisdiction of this Court. The Respondent State further argues that all the allegations raised before the Court had been already raised as grounds for appeal before its Court of Appeal. It is for these reasons that the Respondent State asserts that the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate over the present matter. * 24. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s claims and asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter because violations of rights protected by the Charter are alleged in the Application. 25. The Applicant further submits that although this Court is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts, this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in accordance with the standards set out in the Charter or in any other human rights instruments ratified by the State concerned. The Applicant submits that this is within the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, the Court may revise the judgment of the Respondent State’s appellate court, evaluate the evidence, quash the conviction, set aside the sentence and set him at liberty. *** 26. The Court emphasises that its material jurisdiction is predicated on the Applicant’s allegation of violations of human rights protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent State.6 In the instant matter, the Applicant alleges violation of Articles 2, 3, and 7 of the Charter. 27. The Court recalls its established jurisprudence that it is not an appellate body with respect to decisions of national courts.7 However, “this does not 6 7 Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi (jurisdiction) (15 March 2013) AfCLR 190, § 14. Ibid. 7