00088? 4. Three (3) of the Prosecution Witnesses, that is, PW1, PW2 and PW3 testified in the District Court of Temeke, Dar es Salaam that they were at the scene of the robbery. Furthermore, PW1 testified that he served the Applicants on the material day of the crime while PW2 could only identify the second Applicant. 5. The Applicants were subsequently arraigned before the District Court and on 25 February 2004, convicted of armed robbery in accordance with Sections 285 and 286 of the Respondent state's Penal code and sentenced to a term of 30 years' imprisonment. 6. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Applicants joinfly filed appeals to the High Court and subsequently, to the Court of Appeal, which were dismissed on 21 June 2009 and 14 April 201 1, respectively. Then on 19 April 201 1, the Applicants fited before the Court of Appeal an application for review of their case, which was also dismissed on 20 March 2015. B. Alleged violations 7. The Applicants allege that the Respondent state pronounced an ,,improper,,sentence on them and that it also denied them the right to free legal assistance. The Applicants contend that as a result, the Respondent State has violated their rights protected by the Tanzanian constitution and Artictes 1,2, 3,6 and Articte 7(1) (c) and (2) of the Charter. III. 8. SUMII'IARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT The Application was received on 6 July 2015 and served on the Respondent State and the entities listed under Rule 35(3) of the Rules on 23 September 2015 and 1g October 201 5, respectively. 3 @