3(1) of the Protocol does not provide the Court the jurisdiction to act as an appellate court". The Respondent State further contended that analysis of evidence should be left solely to the national courts of the Respondent State. * 23. At the same Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant responded that in the Matter of Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, the Applicant himself had indicated having fi led an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Malawi whereas, in the instant case, the Applicant alleges human rights violations by the Respondent through, inter alia, the acts of its judicial system . He points out in particular that "the Applicant did not deem to appeal the decisions of the Respondent State before his host State national courts"; that it "alleges violations of his rights notably by the organs and institutions of the Respondent State especially by, but not limited to, the Judiciary" and that, that was the reason for which he brought a case before this Court. 24. On the question as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to re-examine the evidence on the basis of which the Applicant was convicted by the national courts, his Counsel basing his argument on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights argues that even if the issue in the question of admissibility of evidence falls under the purview of national courts, this Court remains competent to ascertain whether the tota lity of the procedure followed before the said national courts is fair as required by Article 7 of the Charter. * 25. The Court reiterates its position that it is not an appellate court in terms of the decisions rendered by the national court2. However, as it pointed out in its Judgment of 20 November 2015 in the Matter of Alex Thomas v. Republic of Tanzania, this position does not preclude its jurisdiction to examine whether the procedures before the national 2 See Ernest Francis Mtingwi v. Republic of Malawi, Judgment of 15 March 201 3, para. 14. 11