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 Case Number 321 of 1996. 40. The Respondent clear in the remedies asserts that, he seeks, because he therefore, the Applicant is not 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 are allegations of violations guaranteed under the Charter. 42. In the Reply of the to the human rights Respondent’s of the Applicant Response, as 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 personal cases. liberty and The Applicant protection also states that his right to from arbitrary violated by his continued detention occasioned hearing of his cases. violated because defence, he was arrest have been by the delay in the He asserts that his right to a fair trial was he was not given the opportunity to present his 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 ae \ ye v 18 ge