and extent of the investigations, and whether specialised evidence such as DNA samples were required.47 98. In this present case the Court notes that the police investigations did not require extensive investigation because the accused in his statement confessed to killing the deceased, while angry, intoxicated and under the influence of smoking drugs, a defense he reiterates before this Court.48 Furthermore, the Applicant’s statement was corroborated by five prosecution witnesses and all evidence availed before the committal proceedings. This case did not involve collecting specialized forms of evidence such as DNA tests.49 In its assessment, this Court has also held that the conduct of the parties can be attributed to prolonging the procedures at the domestic level. However, in this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Applicant did not fully collaborate with the State, neither did he ask for countless adjournments. The Respondent State does not provide justification for the duration of time but instead, generically submits that the Applicant’s case was heard within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay, cannot be said to be attributed to complex nature of the case. 99. Regarding the second factor, which is the conduct of the parties, the Court notes that there is nothing on the record to show that the delay was due to the Applicant’s conduct. The question therefore, is whether the Respondent State observed due diligence in respect of the proceedings before its courts. 100. With regard to due diligence, the Court notes from the record of proceedings that the Applicant was arrested on 4 November 1995, his statement was recorded by the Police and Justice of the Peace at the Magistrate Court on 6 November 1995. He was committed by the District Magistrate on 29 April 1997 and the preliminary hearings before the High Court began on 11 47 Dominick Damian v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 048/2016, Judgment of 4 June 2024 (merits and reparation), § 58. 48 Police Statement, see page 35(000053) of the proceedings of the High Court, Primary court magistrate, see page 32(000056) of the proceedings of the High Court. 49 Damian v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 58. 27