*** 64. The Court notes that the Applicant does not make specific submissions or provide evidence to prove that the manner in which the proceedings before the domestic courts were conducted with regard to the consideration of the evidence in his defence led to any serious miscarriage of justice, or led to a violation of the Applicant’s right to be heard. The Court further notes that the Court of Appeal addressed his defence of alibi. 24 The Court also takes into consideration that nowhere in the record, including in the Applicant’s own grounds of appeal before the domestic courts, is any reference made to the allegation that at the time of his arrest he was treated inhumanely and tortured. 65. In view of this, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to equal protection of the law 66. The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights as guaranteed in Article 3(2) of the Charter. * 67. The Respondent State contends that it did not violate the provisions of Article 3(2) of the Charter. The Respondent State asserts that it had proved its case to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal and adduced all the evidence necessary to convict the Applicant. *** 24 Edison Simon Mwombeki v. Republic, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Mwanza, Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2016, Judgment of 18 October 2016, page 23 – 24. 17