i. The Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate over the Application; ii. The Application does not meet the admissibility requirement stipulated under Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court so that it should be declared inadmissible and duly dismissed; iii. It did not violate the Applicant’s rights stipulated under Article 13(6)(c) of the 1977 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania; iv. It did not violate the Applicant’s right to have his cause heard as stipulated under Article 7(1) of the Charter; v. It did not violate the Applicant’s rights stipulated under Article 7(2) of the Charter; vi. The Applicant’s conviction was based on credible and watertight evidence; vii. The Application lacks merit and must thus be dismissed; and viii. That the costs of this Application be borne by the Applicant. 19. With respect to the Second Applicant, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that: i. The Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate over this Application; ii. The Application does not meet the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court; iii. The Application does not meet the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40(6) of the Rules of Court; and iv. The Application be declared inadmissible and duly dismissed. 20. The Respondent State further prays the Court to find that: i. It did not violate the Applicant’s rights provided under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter; ii. It did not breach the Applicant’s right to be represented; iii. The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania did not delay determination of the Applicant’s Application for review; iv. It did not violate the Applicant’s right to defend himself; 6