182. The Second Applicant submits that in considering the violations alleged, the Court should take notice of the contemporaneous developments in Tanzania’s Refugee Policy at the time of his arrest. He argues that in 1998, Tanzania ended its open-door policy towards refugees in the face of increased hostility to waves of refugees coming from Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. 183. He submits that under the 1998 Refugee Act, more restrictions were placed on refugees’ movements within Tanzania.89 As such, according to the Second Applicant, newly arriving refugees were prohibited from working outside the UNHCR camps in western Tanzanian and from moving freely in the country, as they were perceived as a threat to national security.90 He states that a more aggressive law enforcement response was set in place in late 1998, where the Tanzanian army tried to ‘flush out’ anyone living in villages along the border with Burundi who was not in possession of the resident permits. He avers that, as a result, Tanzania-Burundian married couples were split.91 184. The Second Applicant surmises that the Respondent State thus violated Article 2 and 3 of the Charter by exploiting his vulnerability as a refugee in a foreign criminal legal system, and by failing to remedy the disadvantages he faced as a result of his inability to speak the language or understand the law. * 185. The Respondent State did not respond to this allegation. *** 89 Kamanga, K. (2009). Trying to understand the Tanzania National Refugee Policy of 2003, Int’l refugee Law News, Vol. 2, Issue 2, p. 5. 90 Landau, L. B., Challenge without transformations: Refugees, Aid and Trade in Western Tanzania, J. of modern African Studies, 42(1), pp. 31-59 (2004). 91 Turner, S. (2005), ‘Suspended spaces: Contesting sovereignties in a refugee camp’, in Sovereign bodies: Citizens, migrants and states in the postcolonial world, T.B Hansen and F. Stepputat (ed.), Princeton University Press, pp. 32-322. 52