86. As the Court has previously established various factors are considered in
assessing whether a case was disposed of within a reasonable time within
the meaning of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. These factors include the
complexity of the case, the behaviour of the parties, and the behaviour of
the national judicial authorities.27
87. In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicant only contests the
time it took to finalise his trial proceedings while he remained in detention,
and not his appeal proceedings. The Court recalls that the Applicant was
arrested on 29 July 1999 and was arraigned before the District Court on 4
August 1999. While the preliminary hearing was conducted on 2 May 2000,
the actual trial by the District Court commenced on 12 February 2002,
ending with the Court finding the Applicant guilty and being sentenced on 9
September 2003. In total, the trial proceedings, starting from the Applicant’s
arrest leading to the Applicant’s conviction and sentencing by the District
Court, took four (4) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days.
88. The Court will thus take into account this timeline in determining whether or
not the time taken to conclude the Applicant’s trial was reasonable.
89. With respect to the complexity of the case, the Court notes the nature and
seriousness of the offence, the circumstances in which it took place, the fact
that the Applicant was charged together with various other accused and that
the witnesses testified on different dates.
90. As to the behaviour of the parties and the national judicial authorities, the
Court notes that no argument has been made concerning the level of
responsibility of the Applicant in hampering or expediting the proceedings,
or that the domestic authorities deliberately delayed the proceedings or
unduly failed to expedite the proceedings.
27
See Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, §§ 122124; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 104
and Nganyi and Others v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 155.
22