111. As regards imposed the Applicant's request for an order to have the sentence on him annulled and for his release, as the Court has held in previous cases, such a measure can only be ordered in exceptional and compelling circumstances**. With regard to the sentence being set aside, the Court has always held that it is justified, for example, only in cases where the violation found is such that it necessarily vitiated the conviction and the sentencing. With regard specifically to the Applicant’s release, the Court has established that this would be the case "if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or if the Court by itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant's arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and that his continued detention would occasion a miscarriage of justice”**. 112. In the instant case, the Court recalls that it had already found that the Respondent State is in violation of the right to fair trial for failing to provide the Applicant with legal assistance. Without minimising the gravity of the violation, the Court is of the view that the nature of the violation in the instant case does not reveal any circumstance that signifies that the Applicant’s imprisonment is a miscarriage of justice or an arbitrary decision. The Applicant also failed to adduce further specific and compelling reasons to justify the order for his release. Therefore, this prayer is dismissed. IX. COSTS 113. The Applicant made no specific submissions on costs. 114. The Respondent State prays the Court to rule that the costs of the proceedings should be borne by the Applicant. 33 See Jibu Amir and Another v Tanzania, § 96; Alex Thomas v Tanzania (merits), § 157; Diocles William v Tanzania (merits), § 101; Minani Evarist v Tanzania (merits), § 82; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v United (merits) (2018) 2 RJCA 226, § 96; et Armand Guéhi v Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 164. %4 Jibu Amir Mussa and Another v Tanzania, §§ 96 and 97; Minani Evarist v Tanzania (merits), § 82; and Mgosi Mwita Makungu v Tanzania (merits), § 84. See also Del Rio Prada v. Spain, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 10/07/2012, § 139; Assanidze v Georgia (GC) - 71503/01, Judgment of 8/04/2004, § 204; Loayza-Tamayo v Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 17/09/1987, § 84. 29

Select target paragraph3