160. It is thus apparent from the records that the indictment and the witnesses’ statements were not promptly communicated communicated by the Prosecutor; to the Applicant for reasons evidence was made available to him that some as flimsy as shortage evidence was not of paper; that the with considerable delay; that the court decided to proceed with the case whereas the Applicant was not personally in possession of all the evidence substantiating the charge preferred against him; that in these circumstances, it is clear that the Applicant was not in a favourable position to proceed with his own defence. 161. The Court thus holds that the police and judicial authorities, having not acted with due diligence to communicate in due time to the Applicant all the elements of the charge, the Respondent State has violated his right to a defence, as guaranteed by Article 7(1) (c) of the Charter and Article 14(3)(a) and (b) of the Covenant. H) The allegation that the charge was witness who, moreover, based solely on the testimony of a single had made contradictory statements 162. The Applicant alleges in his Application that his identification was based on the testimony of one person, and that the conviction and sentence relied on a single piece of evidence which was weak, tenuous, unreliable and uncorroborated. 163. In his written submissions attached to the Application, the Applicant explains in detail how the witness Suzan Justin Frank is not credible. He produces extracts from this person’s testimony which he finds contradictory, and argues that she lied in the sense that she never knew the house or place where the accused was living prior to being told by the visitor who went to sympathise with her. He maintained that, according to the Tanzanian jurisprudence, for purposes of identification of a suspect, one witness shall be valid only if the Court is fully satisfied that the witness is telling the truth; but in this case, SQ RS &