ii. T h e y w e r e n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y a C o u n s e l , w e r e denied medical treatment and overstayed in Police custody; iii. They were denied a chance to be heard when the presiding Magistrate was changed; iv. N o a c t u a l w e a p o n w a s d i s c o v e r e d o r t e n d e r e d i n Court to support the charge of armed robbery and the owner of the Bureau de Change mentioned on the Charge Sheet was never called before the Court to testify v. T h e t r i a l p r o c e e d e d d e s p i t e t h e m b e i n g d e n i e d s o m e witness statements and some being provided to them after undue delays; vi. T h e j u d g m e n t s o f t h e T r i a l C o u r t , f i r s t a n d s e c o n d Appellate Courts were defective due to the contradiction between the evidence of Prosecution W itness 2 and Prosecution W itness 3; vii. The Trial Court tried the case to its finality without considering or according weight to the written submissions; viii. T h e High Court concluded the appeal by relying on misapprehension or misdirected evidence; ix. The Court of Appeal relied on misconceived findings to convict them; x. T h e i r C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P e t i t i o n w a s i r r e g u l a r l y r e j e c t e d and returned to them unprocedurally, with no official letter; xi. Their Application for Review at the Court of Appeal was dismissed on grounds that it should have been raised in an Appeal; xii. T h e s e n t e n c e m e t e d a g a i n s t t h e m f o l l o w i n g t h e i r conviction is contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code of Tanzania as this sentence did not exist at the time the offence was committed and i t w a s h a r s h ; and xiii. They have suffered irreparable damage and inhuman treatment due to the violation of their human rights. 7. The Applicants allege violations of their human rights under : i. Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;