—s provide justification for such considerable delay and nothing on record indicates that such a long period of time was necessary to adjudicate on an appeal. 122. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the period of ten (10) years four (4) months and twenty-three (23) days taken to determine the Applicant's appeal at the High Court in respect of Criminal Appeal cannot be Respondent regarded State as a reasonable has violated the time. No. 58/2006 is excessive and The Applicant's Court thus finds that the right to be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. vi. Alleged violation arising from the illegality of the sentence 123. The Applicant alleges that the thirty (30) years prison sentence imposed on him in Criminal Case No. 95/2003 is unlawful as the applicable penalty was fifteen (15) years imprisonment in accordance with the law in force at the time of his conviction in 2005 by the District Magistrate Court. He claims that the thirty (30) years sentence did not exist and is a violation of Article 13(6) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and Article 7(2) of the Charter. 124. However, in his Reply, the Applicant states that he no longer wished to maintain this claim. For this reason, the Court will not address this issue. B. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law 125. The Applicant alleges that he was isolated by the fact-finding procedure and the examination of his appeal, contrary to the principle of equality before the law. He contends that, by this act, his rights as enshrined in Article 3(1)(2) of the Charter have been violated. 35: