2. That the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania has not violated the Applicant's right to personal freedom 3. That the investigation of all the cases facing the Applicant in the municipal courts was m accordance with the law 4. That the costs of the Application be borne by the Applicant" 69. In the Reply to the Applicant's Reply to the Respondent's Response to the Application dated 23 July 2013, " The Respondent prays that the Court grant the following orders: 1. That the Respondent has not violated the new Articles 3, 5, 6, 7(1),14 and 26 of the African Charter cited by the Applicant in their Rejoinder. 2. That the Applicant is not entitled to the reliefs, reparations and compensation claimed as none of his rights have been infringed by the Respondent. 3. That the investigation and subsequent prosecution of all cases facing the Applicant in the Municipal Courts was/is being done in accordance with the Jaws. 4. That the Applicant has not invoked the jurisdiction of the Court as per Rule 26(1) (a) of the Rules of Court and Article 3(1) of the Protocol Establishing the Court. 5. That the Applicant has not met the requirements of Article 40 of the Rules of the Court, Article 56 of the Charter and Article 6(2) of the Protocol. 6. That the Application be dismissed in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. 7. That the costs of this Application be borne by the Applicant. 8. That this Application has no merit. 9. Any other orders or relief(s) the Court may deem fit." Respondent's objection to tendering of evidence by the Appl icant's expert witness 70. By a letter dated 23 September 2013 and confirmed by a letter dated 5 November 2013, the Applicant notified the Registrar of Court (which letters were served on the Respondent) that he intended to call Professor Leonard P. Shaidi, a Professor of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam School of Law to "testify and assist the Honourable Court to understand the obtaining criminal law and procedure of the Respondent State, which Should apply or should have been applicable to the Application" 71. During the public hearing, the Respondent objected to the calling of the expert witness. The Parties made submissions on this issue The Position of the Respondent 72. The Respondent stated that expert witnesses should only be allowed if they are called by the Court, and that the Court does not need an expert opinion on the Criminal Procedure applicable in Tanzania as these are common statutes that can be easily interpreted. The Respondent stated that, furthermore, Counsel for both Parties are Officers of the Court who ought to assist the Court to come to a just decision without resorting to experts. 73. The Respondent maintained that the interpretation of statues is the preserve of Courts and not of experts The Respondent cited the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, in the Case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Shida Manyama and Selemani Mabuba, App No. 81 of 2012 (Unreported), wherein the Court (per Rutakangwa, JA) quoted the opinion of the Supreme Court of India in Alamgir V State of Delhi (2003) ISCC 21: "we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now settled law that expert opinion must always be received with great caution'' 74 In the same case, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania also quoted the decision of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Aggarava/ v Regency Hospital Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 709 which set out three requirements for the admission of an expert witness as follows. 11