165. The Respondent State claims that in the circumstances of this Application no very specific or compelling circumstances have been substantiated. The Respondent State further states that it was proven in its domestic courts that the Applicant committed an offence, hence he is not entitled to restoration of his liberty, restitution or any form of reparations before this Court. *** 166. Regarding the request to be set free, the Court recalls that it can only make such order in very compelling circumstances.49 167. The Court considers that the nature of the violation in the instant case do not reveal any circumstance that the Applicant’s arrest or conviction was based on arbitrary considerations and that his continued imprisonment would occasion a miscarriage of justice.50 The Applicant has also failed to elaborate on any specific and compelling circumstances to justify the order for his release. 168. In view of the foregoing, this prayer is dismissed. ii. Guarantees of non-repetition 169. The Applicant further requests the Court to grant any other order legal remedy it may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances of his application. 170. The Respondent State prays the Court for any other order this Court might deem right and just to grant under the prevailing circumstances. 171. The Respondent State further submits that there are ongoing developments with the adoption of the Legal Aid Act in 2017 which has broadened the scope of legal aid in the Respondent State. 49 50 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 157. William v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 101. 40