*** 94. The Court recalls that in the instant case, it has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to a fair trial by failing to afford him free legal assistance. Without understating the gravity of this violation, the Court notes that it did not find that such a violation has any bearing on the Applicant’s guilt or his conviction.26 95. Furthermore, the Court finds that nothing in the nature of the violation in the instant case reveals any circumstances that would make the continued detention of the Applicant a denial of justice or an arbitrary decision. Neither has the Applicant demonstrated the existence of further exceptional and compelling circumstances that could warrant an order for his release.27 96. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s request for an order quashing his conviction and for his release. IX. COSTS 97. The Parties did not submit on costs. *** 98. Pursuant to Rule 32(2) of the Rules of Court “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs”.28 26 Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, § 157; Makungu v. Tanzania, supra, § 84; Isiaga v. Tanzania, supra, §96, Guéhi v. Tanzania, supra, § 164. 27 Jibu Amir a.k.a. Mussa and Said Ally a.k.a. Mangaya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019), 3 AfCLR 629, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania, supra, §112; and Evarist v. Tanzania, supra, § 82. 28 Formerly Rule 30, Rules of Court, 2 June 2010. 21