0004 I the prejudice generated by the refusal of the State of Tanzania to provide copies of the records of proceedings in the criminal judgments of the Bunda District Court and the decisions of 18 June 1996 and 1 5 April 1996, respectively, finding the applicant guilty of the offence of armed robbery and sentencing him to 35 years in prison. The Applicant also claimed that he had requested the said records from the Respondent State on several occasions, but to no avail. He said he needed the documents to lodge appeal. He further alleged that twenty years had elapsed between his declaration of guilt and conviction on the one hand, and the filing of his application before the Court on the other. Given the passage of time, it is understandable that the evidence in assessing this allegation would be of paramount importance in the conduct of the trial before the Court. 5. lt was clear from his application that the applicant did not contest the charges levelled against him; on the contrary, his claims were centred on the alleged failure of the Tanzanian State to make legal remedies available to its citizen in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rightss. However, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that Mr. Mgosi filed a notice of appeal dated 16 April 1996 in criminal case No. 278 of 1995 and another notice of appeal dated 22 June 1996 in criminal case No. 244 of 1995. ln accordance with Tanzanian law, these notices would constitute appeals in the strict sense only if they are accompanied by an appeal file. Such file must be accompanied by records of the trial proceedings. The absence of these documents allegedly handicapped the applicant in his effort to file a proper appeal. He was reportedly refused the documents, thus making his appeal incomplete or inadmissible. 6. ln the instant case, it seems unconvincing: (1) that the key decisive elements emanate from the claims of Mr. Mgozi and (2) that the said claims are not verified and sufficiently investigated by the Court, even though the latter relies on them for its proceedings, and (3) that the Court is discarding an approach which it has always adopted. On 23 March 2018, it had this attention in the case of Nguza Viking (Babu Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha) v. Tanzanra, which was decided on 23 March 2018. The court emphasised the value of greater scrutiny of the probative value of allegations. The court seemed to have established its jurisprudence based on the evidence adduced by the parties in the context of its jurisdiction in that case. There was in the Nguza dispute, a problem of identification of the accused persons. The Court noted that "the court is of the opinion that the decision on the form of identification of the accused falls within the discretion of the competent national authorities, since it is they The violations are: "the right to equality before the law and to equal protection ofthe law (Section 13 (l) of the Charter); the right to protection of its interests by courts and public bodies; the right to non-discrimination by persons exercising state functions (Section 13 (3) of the Charter); the right to a fair fial, to lodge an appeal or to exercise any other remedy against the decision ofa court or any other competent body (article 13 (6) (a)) of the Charter; and also as this led to a failure to observe National Law, there was a breach of the duty to observe and respect the Constitution and laws (article 26(l))...finally, an infringement of the right to appeal 3 (article 7(l) (a). 2 I