Itrliscellaneous Amendment Act No. 6/1994; that the new law abrogated the 20 year imprisonment and introduced an obligatory minimum punishment of thirty (30) years. 82.The Respondent further indicates that it is not the first time the question of atmed robbery offence, contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of the Fena[ Code Chapter 16, has emerged, as rrrrell as the punishment commensurate wilh this offence before 2004; that flre Court of Appeal of Tanzania has made a ruling on this issue in the Matterof llVilliam R. Genson v. The Republic,inAppealCase No.69D0M. 83.The Respondent submits in conclusion that the Applicant:s allegatlons are without relevance and are baseliess given that he was aceused of armed robbery in 2002, whereas the minimum punishment had been amended eight (8) years earlier. 84.ln his Reply, the Applicant states that he no longer intends to adduce arguments on the legality of the punishment imposed on him and that the Court may therefore consider this issue as no longer in contention between the Parties. 85.The Court notes that the Applicant abandoned this allegation. Fo-r its part, the Court has already found that thirty (30) years has been, in the United Republic of Tanzania, the minimum punishment applicab,le to the offense of armed robbery since 199410. Consequently, it holds that the Respondent has not violated any provision of the Charter in sentencing the Applicant to this term of imprisonment. 10 Mohamed Abubaikoi u. tJnited Repuhlie of Tanzania (Applieation No. 007/ 2013) June 2016, paragraph 210. 20 Mt- of3 ,&-