dropped on 3rc1 September 2007, this being No. 811 of 2005 and 161h of January 2009 Criminal Case No. 64 7 of 2005; and vii. That, the Respondent did not comply with Section 13 (1) (a), (b) and (c) ... of the Criminal Procedure Act". 106. During the public hearing, the Applicants reiterated these allegations. ii. Respondent's submission on the Merits 107. For its part, in its Response of 26 February 2014, the Respondent contests the allegations made by the Applicants, stating in particular that: "i. With respect to the alleged forceful kidnap and abduction of the Applicant, the Respondent states that the arrest of the Applicants was lawful and in compliance to the law, and that the allegations were baseless and without merit and should be duly dismissed . ii. On the allegation that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 13(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 RE 2002], the Respondent states that the Criminal Procedure Act caters for occasions where a warrant of arrest is not necessary such as circumstances of an emergency situation and situations duly elaborated in Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 RE 2002]. Accordingly, the Respondent avers that 'this allegation is misconceived, lacks merit and should be dismissed'. iii. On the allegation that the Applicant's application has been pending in the High Court of Moshi unattended since January 2006, the Respondent avers that 'it was the Applicants themselves who, soon after [being] charged, filed Applications for prerogative Orders against their trials which were only just concluded by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in a 3Z