000I 6. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the Second Appticant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania sitting at Mbeya. On 21 May 2004, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court. Although it found that the consolidation of the cases by the High Court at the judgment stage after they were heard separately was procedurally wrong, it noted, that this error did not prejudice the Applicants' rights. B. Alleged violations 7. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State violated their rights under the Respondent State's Constitution and the Charter as follows: a) The conviction and the sentence imposed on them was non-existent and unconstitutional and therefore contravenes Article 13 (b) (c) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. b) The Respondent State violated their right under Article 7 (1) of the Charter as they did not benefit from free legal assistance. c) They were not equally protected within the law by the Respondent State and this violates Article 3 of the Charter. d) The Respondent State inflicted upon them mental and physical suffering by imposing on them a sentence which is excessive and illegal thereby violating the Charter. III. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE GOURT 8. The Application was filed on 13 July 2015 and was served on Respondent State on 29 October 2015. 4 the $3