Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY State or its institutions, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. The Application was, also not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. As regards exhaustion of local remedies, the Court found that the Applicant had appealed, to the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, the decision of the High Court convicting him of murder. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 22 November 2014, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal. Accordingly, the Applicant had, therefore, exhausted local remedies in compliance with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The Court further held that the Application which was filed four years, eight months and eight days after the Court of Appeal rendered its decision on 22 November 2014, was filed within a reasonable time in accordance with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. This is because the Applicant was incarcerated and secluded from general population, limited in movement and with limited access to information. The Court was also satisfied that the Application did not raise allegations already settled before another international tribunal. Resultantly, the Court declared the Application admissible. On the merits of the case, the Court considered whether the Respondent State had violated the Applicant’s rights under 4, 5, 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 7(1), by its conduct in the assessment of evidence and the sentencing of the Applicant to death. The Applicant submitted that his conviction infringed his right to life under Article 4 of the Charter, arguing that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and that he lacked the requisite intent to commit murder. The Court recalled that Article 4 prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, which requires assessing whether a sentence is lawful and imposed by a competent court in accordance with due process. The Applicant’s claims related solely to due process. In this regard, the Court reiterated that it does not reevaluate evidence already examined by national courts. Upon review of the record, it found no manifest error in the assessment of witness testimony or in the Applicant’s conviction that would support a finding that the Applicant’s rights were violated as 3