A) The Facts 4. The Applicant and one Erasto Samson were jointly charged wth stealing money and various rtems of mlue fom one Habib-u Sailion 1 Odober, 2W2, using violence and injuring fre victim intrefacewitt a machete. 5. On 13 February,2004, the Morogoro District Court rendered its Judgment finding the Applicant and Erasto Samson gutlty of the offence as charged. They were both sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment and twelve (12) strokes of the cane, Erasto Samson having been tried tn absenfla. 6. On 26 February, 2004, the Applicant flled an Appeal before the High Court of Tanzania in Dares-Salaam but that Appeal was dismissed on 12 September, 2005. 7. On 21 September, 2005, the Applicant filed an Appeal before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Dar=es-Salaam. On 27 March, 2009" the Appeal was similarly dismissed as regards the 3O-year prison sentence. However, the Court of Appeal amended the sentence, setting aside the corporal punishment of twelve (12) strokes of the cane. B) Alleged violations B. The Applicant alleges: "(i). That he had been charged and wrongly convicted for armed robbery with thirty (30) year custodial sentence; that the Trial Magistrate and the Appeal Court judges grossly erred in law and fact for having taken into account the key testimony of Prosecution Witness PW1, Habibu Saidi Shomari, whlch evidence does not corroborate the particulars on the charge sheet, especially the list of the items allegedly stolen, their respective values and the estimated total amount; (ii). That the thtrty (30) year sentence pronounced against him by the Trial Magistrate was not in force at the time the robbery was committed (1 October 2OO2); that Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code provide a maximum punishment of fifteen(15) years imprisonment; that the thirty (30) year prison sentence came into force only in 2004 sequel to decree No. 269 of 2O04, as amended and which became Section 287 A of tlre Penal Code; (iii) That he was denied the right to i n; € 4 -#.)