observed that the case was adjourned on multiple occasions during the proceedings before the District Court, upon the request of the Respondent State. Moreover, the District Court granted the Applicant’s prayer to start the case de novo when a new judge took over the case. This resulted in the fresh testimony of all the prosecution witnesses who had previously testified. Consequently, the Court found that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time guaranteed under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter regarding the period of proceedings before the domestic courts of six years, five months and one day. Regarding the Applicant’s fifth alleged violation on his right to a fair trial contrary to the provisions of Article 7(1) of the Charter because he was convicted on the basis of a defective charge sheet, the Respondent State submitted that, the allegation touched on evidentiary matters which this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider. The Respondent State argued that should the Court consider evidentiary matters, it would be sitting as an appellate court with regard to matters which were already decided by the highest court in the Respondent State, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The Court observed that Article 7(1) of the Charter guarantees the protection of fair trial rights, however, it considered it necessary to invoke Article 14 of the ICCPR, which deals with the said right in greater detail. The Court found that the failure of the Respondent State to record the offence on the Applicant’s charge sheet was a procedural irregularity, which however, did not result in a miscarriage of justice, since the Applicant was able to understand the offence with which he was charged and to also take plea. Consequently, the Court held that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 7(1) of the Charter as read together with Article 14 of the ICCPR with regard to the allegation on charging the Applicant using a defective charge sheet. On the sixth and last alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to dignity, protected under Article 5 of the Charter, the Applicant claimed that he was brutalized and 7