that the Court cannot set aside or quash the decision of its highest national court, namely the Court of Appeal, once the same has rendered a final and conclusive judgment on the matter in question. *** 146. Regarding the Applicants’ prayer to set aside their conviction and sentence, the Court notes that it has not determined in this matter whether the conviction and sentences of the Applicants were warranted or not.45 The Court is rather concerned with whether the procedures in the national courts are compatible with international standards enshrined in the international human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. As a result, the Court dismisses the request that it should quash the Applicants’ conviction and sentence. 147. With regard to the Applicants’ prayer to be released from prison, the Court has established that it would make such an order, “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.”46 148. In the instant case, the Court recalls that it has found that the Respondent State violated the Applicants’ right to defence by failing to provide them with free legal assistance. Without minimising its gravity, the Court considers that the nature of the established violation does not reveal any circumstance to consider the Applicants’ imprisonment as arbitrary or as causing a miscarriage of justice. The Applicants also failed to elaborate on specific and compelling circumstances to justify an order for their release.47 45 Stephen John Rutakikirwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 013/2016. Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 88. 46 Evarist v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 82; See also Amir (Mussa) and Saidi Ally (Mangaya) v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019), § 96; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 84. 47 Amir and Ally v. Tanzania, ibid, § 97; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 112; and Evarist v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 82. 37