00048? 8 ln this view, as one might think, this case does not leave room for reflection on equality of arms, a principle of the Common Law system that prescribes a fair balance between the Parties; a principle which could have been used had the applicant established the State's refusal. However, as the court pointed out in the same year, proof of refusal "falls within the discretionary powers of the competent national authorities since it is they who determine the probative value of that evidence and they enjoy a wide discretion in that regard ". Coming back to the requests for copies of the record of proceedings and judgements, the application was dismissed on 21 September 2015 on the ground that it was unfounded. 9 The above demonstrates the importance of the provision of evidence that has always impacted on the court's judgements. ll. Proof of claims has always impacted the judgement of the Court 10 Only proven claims form the content of judicial decisionse. ln AfCHPR, Abubakari v. Tanzaniall, the court noted that "it is for the party alleging discriminatory treatment to prove it ". This shows the decisive nature of the evidence of claims adduced before a court. lt is rightly believed that where claims are proven, this should be reflected in the operative part. ln this Mgosi decision, I stand with the majority on the fact that the Court does not grant "the applicant's request to order his release, without prejudice to the decision of the respondent State to take such a measure on its own initiative ". lt had thus rejected that point, which featured among the prayers of the applicant. 11 The essential nature of the concrete evidence adduced in support of a claim naturally shapes a judicial decision. Mr Mgosi does not provide the court with any concrete evidence of the exercise of appeal, but merely states that he was unable to do so, even though in accordance with the Tanzanian system, he had gone beyond the notice of appeal stage. The court should not grant his requests. lt stated in the case of Alex Thomas V. Tanzaniall that general claims whereby his right has been violated are not sufficient. Concrete evidence is required. We understand the meaning of its decision in this case. 12 Mr. MGosisupposedly did not benefited from the availability of the domestic courts. The violation of article 7(1)12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was See ECHR, Gafgen v. Germany, I June 2010: the applicant brought an action before the court alleging a violation of article 3 ECHR on the ground that the treatment he was allegedly subjected to during the interrogation of the National Police concerning the whereabouts of the child he had abducted amounted to e torture. The use of material evidence obtained through his confession, which incriminated him, should have been excluded by respect for the right to a fair trial. The court had issued a decision on this evidence, article 6 ECIIR on the right to a fair trial would have been violated. Also see: ECHR, I June 2010, Gafgen v. Germany (application No. 22978105), reports ofjudgements and decisions 2010-IV, pp.327-407 . 10 ACHPR,, Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania,316 2016 11 ACHPR,, Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania, 20/11/2015. 12 This article states that "every individual shall have the right to have his case heard. This comprises: the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force. ". 6 4