1) The Allegation relating to the Applicants' being held in custody for three weeks 123. The Applicants submit that they were held in custody for 3 weeks by the authorities of the Republic of Kenya before being arraigned in court, and that this was in violation of their basic rights. The Respondent contends that it is directed to the Republic of Kenya, which is not a party to the instant Application. 124. The Court reiterates its position that it lacks personal jurisdiction to entertain allegations against the Republic of Kenya and therefore, dismisses this allegation. 2) Allegation relating to the re-arrest after acquittal i) Applicants' Submissions 125. The Applicants allege that their rights under Article 6 of the Charter were violated when they were re-arrested by the Police after the trial Magistrate at Kisutu acquitted them. The Applicants argue that after they were acquitted of charges of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit crimes, they were immediately re-arrested and charged before the Resident Magistrate Court of Oar es Salaam at Kisutu with the crime of stealing contrary to section 265 and armed robbery contrary to Section 287 of the Penal Code of the Respondent. They claim that the re-arrest and subsequent charges of stealing and armed robbery violated their right to presumption of innocence. ii) Respondent's Submissions 126. The Respondent argues that the Applicants were lawfully re-arrested and that the second charges were subsequently withdrawn in the interest of justice and the rights of the Applicants. iii) The Court's Assessment 127. From the records available before it, the Court notes that on 26 March 2003, the Applicants were arraigned at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate Court in Oar es Salaam and charged with two counts under the Penal Code, ~a£ 16. The ~~~ 33 - ~ ~