204. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent State explained that in 1994 the Parliament by Law No. 6 of 1994 amended minimum Section 5 of the Minimum Sentence Act by setting a sentence of thirty years in jail for the offence of armed robbery, and that that sentence was applied to the instant case, even though the penalty provided by Section 286 of the Penal Code was life imprisonment. 205. On the Judgment setting aside the thirty year prison sentence in the case of Alfayo Michael Shemwilu and Ramadhani Shekiondo v. The Republic cited by the Applicant (supra, para 201), the Respondent State’s representative argued that that was a decision of the High Court [Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2013], but that the Court of Appeal, in contrast, ruled in the case of William R. Gerrison v. Republic that a sentence of thirty years imprisonment was appropriate for the crime of armed robbery [Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2004. 206. At the same Public Hearing, the Respondent State’s representative reiterated that it is Act No. 6 of 1994 which provides for the thirty years minimum sentence for the offence of armed robbery that was applied to the Applicant in 1997. It further argued that Act No. 4 of 2004 entered into force by virtue of Government Notice No. 269 of 2004 which simply clarified that armed robbery is deemed to have occurred where the accused is in possession of dangerous weapons. 207. The Court notes that the only relevant question in contention here is whether the penalty to which the Applicant was sentenced in 1998 and upheld in 1999 and 2004 was not provided by the law. 208. According to Article 7(2) of the Charter: “No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed.” . Ne <<