of the right to appeal. In this regard, the Court recalls that as it has previously held, the right to appeal entails that States should establish competent mechanisms but also facilitate access thereto.20 The Court has further held that the requirement of two-tier adjudication is absolute in criminal matters.21 73. The issue arising in the present Application is whether the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law were breached when the Applicants could not appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment which substituted the sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment meted out by the High Court with that of life imprisonment. 74. The Court observes that, as prescribed in the Respondent State’s judicial system, criminal matters such as the one involving the Applicants are first adjudicated by the District Court with appeal to the High Court. Contestations of the High Court’s pronouncement are then taken to the Court of Appeal. 75. In the instant Application, the High Court reversed the sentence of life imprisonment meted by the District Court and substituted it with that of thirty (30) years imprisonment. When the matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal, the latter then found that the sentence as varied by the High Court was not appropriate as per law; and restored the one imposed by the trial court as the one provided for by law. 76. This Court notes that pursuant to Section 131A (1) and (2) of the Respondent State’s Penal Code, the sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory for the offence of gang rape. It is in observance of the said provision that the Court of Appeal restored the sentence of life imprisonment initially meted out by the District Court. 20 Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 57; Benedicto Daniel Mallya v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (26 September 2019) 3 AfCLR 482, § 43. 21 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (merits) (29 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 130, § 212. 19