*** 92. The Court notes that, in the judicial system of the Respondent State, as well as in other jurisdictions, alibi is an important element in criminal defence, which when established with certitude, can be decisive on the determination of the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, whenever it is raised by an applicant, the defence of alibi must always be seriously considered, thoroughly examined and possibly set aside, prior to a guilty verdict.29 93. In the present case, the records of the domestic judicial proceedings clearly show that the Applicants had raised a defence of alibi during their trial, and the trial court after weighing it against the testimonies tendered by the prosecution witnesses, found that it was not credible enough “to shake the Republic’s case”.30 Despite the fact that the Second Applicant failed to raise his defence of alibi in the manner required by the domestic law, the High Court applied its discretion, considered the defence and similarly concluded that it “does not create any doubt to the prosecution’s case as the evidence is watertight”.31 The issue was not raised at the Court of Appeal but the Court of Appeal upheld the position of the lower courts that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was watertight and credible to sustain the conviction against both Applicants. 94. The Court finds no anomality or manifest error in the manner the domestic courts dealt with the Applicants’ defence of alibi to warrant its own intervention. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ contentions in this regard and holds that the Respondent State dd not violate the Applicants’ right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter. iii. Alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance 29 Abubakari v. Tanzania, supra, § 26; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits) supra, § 93. Judgment of the District Court, p. 18. 31 Judgment of the High Court, p. 9. 30 25