Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY The Court, accordingly, dismissed the Applicant’s allegations and held that the Respondent State did not violate his right to be heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. On the allegation relating to the right to be tried within a reasonable time, the Court recalled its previous decision in Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. Tanzania, where it held that “… there is no standard period that is considered reasonable for a court to dispose of a matter. In determining whether time is reasonable or not, each case must be treated on its own merits.” The Court further noted that various factors are taken in to consideration 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 authorities. In the present case, the Court observed that the Applicant contested the total duration of the time it took to finalise his trial and appellate proceedings as well as the time it took between his arrest and his arraignment in court. After examining the different elements, the Court considered that the period to finalise the Applicant’s trial and appellate proceedings could not be found to be unreasonable and, therefore, held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, guaranteed under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. As to the time taken between the Applicant’s arrest and his arraignment in court, the Court found that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the period taken to arraign the Applicant in court was not unreasonable and, therefore, held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried within reasonable time, protected under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. On the alleged violation of the right to dignity and prohibition against torture, degrading and inhuman treatment, the Court considered that the Applicant claimed that his arrest was unlawful because the police allegedly used torture when arresting him. The Court also took note that the Respondent State’s law, under Section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act, permits police officers to use force during an arrest, provided that no more force is used or that the person is not subjected to greater indignity than is necessary, to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the person after he has been arrested. The Court also considered, from the record, that the Applicant tried to evade arrest by running away and that he continued running even after a warning shot was fired and that he was eventually shot in the leg in order to be apprehended. The Court, furthermore, observed that the Applicant did not provide proof or substantiate the allegation that excessive force was used or that he was treated with greater 5