105. The Applicants surmise that they did not raise multiple applications before the trial court and the Respondent State did not justify the delays between the various stages of the proceedings. There is simply no explanation on record to demonstrate why the Applicants were not accorded a preliminary hearing for nearly two years after their arrest, which resulted in substantial prejudice as witness memories fade over time, including their memories of how a person appeared, the timing of events and statements that were made. 106. The First Applicant adds that the Prosecution filed an application to have him examined for competency to stand trial, to which his lawyer did not object. According to him, this process at the most takes a period of a few weeks to finalise as the evaluator is a state employee. * 107. In response to this allegation, the Respondent State merely submits that the Applicants’ trial was held within a reasonable time. *** 108. Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises the right to be tried within a reasonable time …”. 109. In Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, this Court has held that the right to be tried within a reasonable time is an important aspect of fair trial.48 The Court further held that the right to a fair trial also includes the principle that judicial proceedings should be finalised within a reasonable time.49 In determining the right to be tried within a 48 Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 127; and Benedicto Daniel Mallya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 September 2019) 3 AfCLR 482, § 48. 49 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, § 117. 32