84. In this regard, the Court recalls that the right to defence is fulfilled when the Applicant is informed of this right and where the Respondent does not bar him from calling witnesses, as is the case in the present matter.34 85. In the present Application, the Court notes that under Section 231(4) of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act (CPA): Where the accused person states that he has witnesses to call but that they are not present in court, and the court is satisfied that the absence of such witnesses is not due to any fault or neglect of the accused person and that there is likelihood that they could, if present, give material evidence on behalf of the accused person, the court may adjourn the trial and issue process or take other steps to compel attendance of such witnesses. 86. The record shows that at the beginning of the trial proceedings, counsel for the Applicant submitted that the defence would not call witnesses save for the accused himself.35 This Court also notes that after close of the prosecution’s case, the trial court judge informed the Applicant of his right to give evidence on his own behalf and to call witnesses in his defence in line with the provisions of Section 293(2)(a) and (b) of Criminal Procedure Act. In response, counsel stated that the accused person would defend himself under oath and would be the only defence witness.36 As Section 231(3) of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act provides, after notification of the right to call witnesses, if the accused person elects not to do so, a court is entitled to draw adverse inferences against him. 87. In respect of the Applicant’s reliance on the Diocles William case, this Court recalls that as it held in the said judgment:37 […] it was necessary for the Respondent State’s judicial authorities to be more proactive, in particular, in ascertaining whether the Applicant 34 Mhina Zuberi v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 054/2016, Judgment of 26 February 2021 (judgment), §§ 73-74 and Ivan v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, §§ 75-76. 35 The Republic v. Dominick S/O Damian, Criminal Sessions Case No. 61 of 2008, supra, page 4. 36 Ibid, pages 25-26. 37 William v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 64-66. 24