96. The Court recalls that the Applicant was arrested on 4 February 2008, that the preliminary hearing was conducted on 15 February 2010, that her trial commenced on 29 November 2010 and that the High Court found the Applicant guilty and sentenced her on 19 September 2011. In total, the High Court proceedings leading to the Applicant’s conviction, therefore, were concluded after three (3) years, seven (7) months. 97. As regards the time period the between the arrest of the Applicant and the commencement of her trial, the Court further recalls that two (2) years, nine (9) months and twenty-five (25) days elapsed. Regarding the argument in respect of the undue prolongation of the trial, the Court notes that from the date of commencement of the trial to the conclusion of the same, a period of nine (9) months and sixteen (16) days elapsed. The Court will thus take into account this timeline in determining whether or not the time taken to conclude the Applicant’s trial is reasonable. 98. As regards the time it took to commence proceedings against the Applicant, the Court observes that the Respondent State offers only a general explanation, to the effect that committal proceedings at the District Court are often prolonged, an explanation that, in any case, is not supported with evidence. The Court notes that there is nothing on record to justify delay in the commencement of the trial inasmuch as, for example, the prosecution principally relied on eye witnesses to the murder.33 The Court notes that the Respondent State also does not make any argument to demonstrate that the delayed commencement of the trial was due to the Applicant’s conduct. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the period of two (2) years, nine (9) months and twenty-five (25) days between the Applicant’s arrest and the commencement of her trial is an inexcusable delay in the domestic procedures and, therefore, constitutes a violation of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 33 Cf. Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania, § 88. 29