50. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the application meets all the conditions of admissibility set out in Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules, and accordingly declares it admissible. VII. MERITS 51. The Applicant alleges the following violations: i. That he was not informed of the ground of arrest before being arrested by the police; ii. That the Court of Appeal of Tanzania failed to properly determine matters of law and facts in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 7(1) of the Charter and Article 107A(B) of the Constitution of the Respondent State (1977); and iii. That the justice of appeal had erred in law and facts by failing to observe that the defence witnesses was/were not summoned/called as required by Section 231 of the CPA, Cap 20 RE 2002 and Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. 52. The Court observes that the Applicant’s averments as stated above revolve around the alleged violations of the right to be notified of the charges against him (A), the right to have one’s cause heard jointly read with the right to equality before the law (B), and the right to defence (C). The Court will examine these allegations in turn. A. Alleged violation of the right to be notified of the charges 53. The Applicant alleges that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest before being arrested which amounts to a violation of his fundamental rights under section 23 of the CPA, Cap 20 RE 2002 supported by Article 15(2) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. 54. The Respondent State refutes the allegation and submits that if the Applicant felt his rights had been violated, he had the remedy of instituting 13