the Protocol or any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the United Republic of Tanzania. The Applicant has merely listed his grievances against the application of the Criminal Procedure Act in relation to the originating criminal case against him, being Casn Number 321 of 1996. 40. The Respondent asserts that, because the Applicant is not clear in the remedies he seeks, he therefore, has not invoked the jurisdiction of the Court and the Application should be dismissed. 41. The Applicant maintains that the Court has the jurisdiction ratione materiae to determine this case on the basis that there aro allegations of violations of the human rights of the Applicant as guaranteed under the Charter. 42. In the Reply to the Respondent's Response, the Applicant alleges violation of the obligation of Member States to give effect to the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined therein, violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law and violation of the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which resulted from the inordinate delay in the hearing of the Applicant's cases. The Applicant also states that his right to personal liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest have been violated by his continued detention occasioned by the delay in thu hearing of his cases. He asserts that his right to a fair trial was violated because he was not given the opportunity to present his defence, he was not provided pro bono legal aid despite being charged with a serious offence and that there were systematic and prolonged delays in his appeals and his application for review at the 18