SaaPeeS:
164 . With respect to the Applicant's request for the conviction and sentence to be
quashed, the Court reiterates its previous jurisprudence that it does not examine
details of matters of fact and law that national courts are entitled to address.°*
165. . As for the Applicant's request for a direct order for his release or to set aside the
sentence,
ordered
as the Court stated
in its previous cases,
such a measure
by the Court itself only in special and compelling
may be
circumstances.
Regarding the quashing of the sentence, the Court has held that this would be
warranted
only
in cases
where
the violation
noted
necessarily vitiated the conviction and sentencing.
release,
was
such
that it had
Regarding the question of
in particular, the Court has held that this would be the case "if an
Applicant
sufficiently
demonstrates
or the
Court
itself establishes
from
its
findings that the Applicant's arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary
considerations
and
that
his
continued
imprisonment
would
occasion
a
miscarriage of justice."
166. In the
instant case,
the Applicant
has
not proven
the
existence
of such
exceptional circumstances, and given that the Court has not established the said
circumstances proprio motu, it
dismisses the prayer for release.
ii, | Guarantees of non-repetition and report on implementation
167. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to guarantee the
non-repetition of the violations of which he has been a victim and to report to the
Court every six (6) months until its orders are fully implemented.
®2Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 28; Minani Evarist v.
United Republic of Tanzania (merits) 2 RJCA 415, § 81.
5%Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania Judgment (merits), § 234. Armand Gué6hi v. United Republic
of Tanzania (merits and reparations) § 160.
S4Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 84, Diocles William v. United Republic of
Tanzania § 101; Application No. 027/2015, Judgment of 21 September 2018, Minani Evarist v. United
Republic of Tanzania (merits) § 82.
45