notes that it has not found that the violation is of any relevance in terms of the Applicant’s guilt or conviction.27 93. The Court further considers that in the instant case, there is nothing in the nature of the violation that suggests that keeping the Applicant in prison constitutes a miscarriage of justice or an arbitrary decision. The Applicant also failed to adduce further specific and compelling circumstances warranting his immediate release.28 94. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s request for a measure quashing his conviction and ordering his release. IX. COSTS 95. The Parties did not make any submissions on costs. *** 96. Pursuant to Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Court, “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs”.29 97. The Court finds that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case to warrant a departure from that principle. Consequently, the Court orders that each party shall bear its own costs. X. OPERATIVE PART 27Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, § 157; Makungu v. Tanzania, supra, § 84; Isiaga v. Tanzania, supra, § 96, Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, § 164. 28Jibu Amir a.k.a. Mussa and Said Ally a.k.a. Mangaya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania, supra, § 112; and Evarist v. Tanzania, supra, § 82. 29 Rule 30 of the Rules of 2 June 2010. 22