0008? 3 65.The records before this Court indicate that the incident that led to the arrest of the Applicants happened on 31"t December 2001. Following their arrest, the Applicants were subsequently charged and convicted of robbery with violence pursuant to Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 10 of 1989. 66. The Court notes that the penalty for robbery with violence carries a similar punishment as armed robbery in the laws of the Respondent State, which according to Section 5 (b) of the Minimum Sentences Act of 1972, as amended by the 1994 Written Laws Amendment, is a minimum of thirty (30) years' imprisonment. The Court has affirmed this in Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzanialo and Chistopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania, where it stated that "thirty years has been in the United Republic of Tanzania, the minimum punishment applicable for the offence of armed robbery since 1994".11 67.|t follows that the Applicants were convicted on the basis of legislation which was in force on the date of commission of the crime, that is, 31st December 2001, and the punishment imposed on them was also prescribed in a law which was enacted prior to the commission of the crime, that is, the Minimum Sentences Act 1972 as amended by Act No. 10 of 1989 and Act No. 6 of 1994. 68.The Applicants' allegation that their conviction and punishment violates the Charter thus lacks merit. 69. 10 11 The Court therefore finds that there was no violation of Article 7 (2) of the Charter Mohamed Abubakai v Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR Sgg S 210 Christopher Jonas v. Tanzanla (Merits) g 85. 17