001081 led him to lose his Tanzanian nationality, knowing that Tanzania does not recognize dual nationality. 79. The Respondent State, for its part, contends that the Applicant is not a Tanzanian citizen, invoking the fact that during the Applicant’s trial in Criminal Case No. 35/2010, the Prosecution tendered certified true copies of the Applicant's passports issued by the United Kingdom and the Republic of South Africa. The Respondent State submits Kingdom Rubenstein that the United his name as Robert John and indicated that he is a British citizen with his place of birth being Johannesburg, South Africa, where argues copy that passport bore a of the he was Applicant's born on 25 September South African passport 1968. It further issued by the Department of Home Affairs in South Africa reflected the Applicant’s nationality as South African, his place of birth as Johannesburg and date of birth as 1968. 80.The Respondent documents were State also presented submits by the that the Applicant copies of in support the afore-mentioned of his application for a Tanzanian Residence Permit, thus, raising the question as to why a Tanzanian would need a residence permit to reside in his own country. 81. The Respondent State avers that the initial criterion to prove a Tanzanian nationality or citizenship by birth, that is, to be born in Tanzania, has not been met by the Applicant in as much as the copies of passports tendered in evidence during local proceedings clearly testify to the Applicant’s nationality and place of birth as being South Africa. 82. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant has failed to discharge his burden of proof that he is Tanzanian. It argues that rather than producing unequivocal evidence of his Tanzanian nationality, the Applicant provided conflicting and contradictory information on his birth and nationality. On various occasions during the proceedings at domestic level, the Applicant failed to produce certified