before his incarceration but, as a starting point, his liberty can be restored as the second-best measure given the circumstances. * 139. The Respondent State submits that this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to order the Applicant’s release from prison. *** 140. The Court recalls its previous jurisprudence that an order can only be made in specific and compelling circumstances such as “if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant’s arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and his continued imprisonment would occasion a miscarriage of justice.”42 141. In the present case, without minimizing the gravity of the violations established, the Court finds that the violations did not manifestly affect the processes which led to the conviction and sentencing of the Applicant to the extent that he would have been in a different position had the said violations not occurred. Furthermore, the Applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate, nor did the Court establish, that his conviction and sentencing were based on arbitrary considerations and that his continued incarceration is unlawful.43 142. In light of the facts and circumstances, this prayer is therefore dismissed. 42 Evarist v. Tanzania, ibid, § 82. See also Jibu Amir (Mussa) and Another v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 96; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 84. 43 See Evarist v. Tanzania, supra, §. 82. 35