K) The allegation that the sentence pronounced by the judge against the Applicant was not applicable under Tanzanian law at the relevant time 200. In his Application, the Applicant alleges that even if there had been evidence indicting him - which is not the case - the sentence of thirty years imprisonment meted against him was not applicable, and therefore that his conviction was unconstitutional [para 8]. He further alleged that the thirty years prison sentence was introduced and published in Government Notice No. 269 of 2004 in Section 287 A of the Penal Code. 201. In his written submissions attached to the Application, the Applicant states that as of 2002, the Criminal Code did not provide for imprisonment of thirty (30) years; that the Code provided for twenty (20) years imprisonment or life imprisonment; that the penalty of thirty (30) years imprisonment was therefore unconstitutional; and that the 2002 amendment which prescribed thirty (30) years imprisonment occurred after his conviction on 21 July 1998. He invoked two Judgments of the Moshi High Court rendered in 2012 and 201325, which annulled the sentences of thirty years imprisonment handed down in 2001 and 2003. 202. In his Reply, the Applicant reiterated this position. 203. In its Response, the Respondent State refutes the allegation that the sentence could not be thirty years in prison, and explains that according to Section 286 of the Penal Code, the punishment prescribed was actually life imprisonment, but that the judge reduced it to thirty years in consideration of the Minimum Sentences Act which provided for this minimum sentence for armed robbery. It maintained that the Government Notice No. 269 of 2004 cited by the Applicant was merely correcting a simple typographical error in the numbering of Sections of the Penal Code of 2004. 25 The Applicant cites the following cases: Ramadhani Shekiondo and Alfayo Michael Revision No. 2/2013; Emanuel Estomi H/C Moshi App. No. 28/2012 . I H/C Moshi, Criminal @ es Oe by& x, “2