87. The Court notes that the appointment of an expert. falls squarely within the discretion of the Court Indeed, under Rule 45(1) of the Rules, the Court may, "of its own accord, or at the request of a party, or the representatives of the Commission. where applicable, obtain any evidence which in its opinion may provide clarification of the facts of a case. The Court may. inter alia, decide to hear as a witness or an expert or in any other capacity any person whose evidence, assertions or statements it deems likely to assist it in carrying out its task''. 88. Therefore the main qualities the Court expects of an expert in this case would include sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, independence and impartiality towards the Parties in carrying out his or her duties. 89. The Court declares that, in this matter, it does not consider to be relevant the procedural criminal law of the Respondent State, which is not the applicable law in this matter. 90. In the view of the Court, since the expert was called by one party and the other objected, in circumstances where the Court had not felt the need for an expert of its own accord, and was under no obligation to accept the e witness, then the Court decided to dispense with the expert. The Respondent's preliminary objections 91. The Respondent raises preliminary objections on both admissibility and jurisdiction. Preliminary objection on jurisdiction 92. The Respondent raises a preliminary objection regarding the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae. 93. The Respondent contends that the subject matter of the Application does not relate to the application and interpretation of the Charter, the Protocol or any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent as required by Article 3 (1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules, rather, that the Application is based on the Constitution of the Respondent as well as national legislation, specifically, the Criminal Procedure Act, on which the Court cannot adjudicate. The Respondent contends that, should the Court adjudicate on the matter, it will usurp the powers of municipal courts. Preliminary objection on admissibility 94. In the alternative, the Respondent is challenging the admissibility of the Application on the grounds that it is not compatible with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, now the Constitutive Act of the African Union, or the Charter as required by Rule 40(2) of the Rules. 95. The Respondent contends that the Applicant has not identified the provisions of the Charter and the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity that are alleged to have been violated and that he has only alleged violation of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and national legislation. Non-exhaustion of local remedies 96. The Respondent states that Criminal Sessions Case No. 3 of 2009, Criminal Case No. 716 of 2009 and Criminal Case No. 712 of 2009 instituted in the Resident Magistrate 's Courl of Arusha which form the basis of this Application. are being handled by the national adjudication machinery. The Applicant's cases are ongoing and are yet to be finalised". 97. The Respondent maintains that the Applicant has filed several petitions in the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha alleging violations of his right to personal freedom and to property. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7 of 2007 was dismissed for being premature and the Applicant djd not appeal this decision. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 47 of 2010 was struck out for being improperly filed. The Applicant did not either reinstitute the matter under the correct procedure or appeal against the Court's decision to strikeout the petition. The Applicant withdrew Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 78 of 2010 and Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 80 of 2010 on 18 May 2011 and has not reinstituted them. The Respondent also alleges that the Applicant withdrew Criminal Application No. 16 of 2011 on 26 March 2012 and has not reinstated it. 13