13. The Court also found that the Applicant was convicted on “inconsistent testimony of a single witness in the absence of any identification parade’ and that “the Applicant's alibi defence was not given Respondent State’s police and judicial authorities’. serious consideration by the 14. From the foregoing, | cannot find more “specific and/or compelling” circumstances than that the Applicant’s conviction was based on the inconsistent testimony of a single witness in the absence of any identification parade; that the Applicant’s alibi defence was not given serious consideration by the Respondent’s police and judicial authorities; and that the Applicant has been in prison for 19 years out of the 30 years prison term, following a trial which the Court has declared to have been an unfair trial, in violation of the Charter. 15. The Court in this case is hesitant Applicant and has opted to leave Respondent. The Court may want similar Orders in Application No. Republic of Tanzania®, which the with. in making an order of releasing the the issue to the discretion of the to note that it had previously made 005/2013, Alex Thomas v United Respondent State has not complied 16. The ECtHR in the case of De! Rio Prada v Spain’ after finding that the Applicant had been unjustly kept in prison and her rights violated had held “by sixteen votes to one, that the respondent State is to ensure that the applicant is, released at the earliest possible date”. This case related to the alleged violation of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that “1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.” 17. The code which to the applicant in that matter argued that an and the adoption of a new approach to resulted in the extension of her release retroactive application of a penalty that ameridment to the criminal the remission of sentences date by 9 years amounted did not exist at the material ® Application No. 005/2013, Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 20 November 2015 page, 65, 161 (ix) 7 Judgment in Application No. 42750/09 Case of Del Rio Prada v. Spain, 21 October 2013 at page 51, para 3 of the disposition tC