72. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the domestic courts. In the circumstances, the Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ allegations. C. Alleged violation due to the three (3) months delay in sending the seized Cannabis Sativa to the government chemist 73. The Applicants submit that the Court of Appeal failed to consider why it took more than three (3) months for the police to submit the impounded Cannabis Sativa to the government chemist. According to the Applicants, this was contrary to the Respondent State’s Drugs Act and led to a violation of their rights. * 74. The Respondent State points out that this issue was considered and finalised by the Court of Appeal. According to the Respondent State, when the Applicants’ counsel raised this matter before the Court of Appeal, it recalled the evidence of PW7 before the trial court and endorsed the explanation he had given as accounting for the delay in taking the drugs to the government chemist. It submits that the delay in taking the drugs to the chemist was due to transportation challenges since the whole impounded lot had to be transported at once. It thus prays that the Court find that the Applicants’ allegation lacks merit and should be dismissed. *** 75. The Court notes that the Applicants’ grievance relates to the time it took the Respondent State to transport the impounded Cannabis Sativa from Tanga, where it was stored, to the government chemist in Dar es Salaam. 76. The Court further notes that the question of the delay in transportation of the Cannabis Sativa to Dar es Salaam arose during proceedings before the Court of Appeal. According to the record, it took a total of three (3) months before the seized Cannabis Sativa was sent to the government chemist. 20