guaranteed under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read jointly with Article 14(3) (d) of the ICCPR. On the fourth claim that the Respondent State unduly prolonged the trial of the Applicant, contrary to the provisions of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter, the Court found it necessary to invoke Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, although it was not raised by the Applicant, since it had more explicit provisions regarding this right. In considering this allegation, the Court categorized the alleged delay in two parts, namely: the duration of the pre-trial detention and the delay during the entire period of the proceedings before the national courts. On the pre-trial detention, the Court noted that this did not exceed 48 hours, which it considered to be reasonable in light of the gravity of the offence of rape and the resultant investigations and medical examinations that had to be conducted by the police authorities. In light of the above, the Court found that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter as read jointly with Article 9(3) of the ICCPR with regard to pre-trial detention. Concerning the alleged delay of the totality of the proceedings before the domestic courts from the District Court at Morogoro to the finalisation of the case, when the Court of Appeal rendered its decision, a period of six years (6), five (5) months and one day (1) had elapsed. Similarly, the Court recalled its jurisprudence that while some delays can be attributed to procedural requests by the Applicant, the responsibility to ensure that justice is delivered without undue delay ultimately rests with the State. The Court observed that the case was not a complex one as it did not require adducing or considering specialised evidence such as taking DNA samples and a medical report of the raped victim was tendered as evidence by the prosecution, which was not contested by the Applicant. In addition, the prosecution had 4 witnesses while the Applicant had only 1 witness who testified. The Court also 6