this precondition was not met. He asked the Court to revisit the testimonies used as evidence by the Tanzanian courts. 164. In his Reply, and still on the fact that the conviction relied on the contradictory testimony of one person, the Applicant reiterated that this constitutes an irregularity; and that it was needful, in accordance with Tanzanian law, to have scrupulously checked whether the only witness was telling the truth. 165. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant, relying on the tenor of the Judgments rendered by the national courts, that on the day of the robbery, 5 April 1997, all those who went to the police station, including the complainant, prosecution witness No. 1, indicated that they could not identify the robbers considering that it all happened in the evening, and the conditions were not favourable; however, that several days later and at the hearing, the same complainant stated that only she has been able to identify the Applicant and that the other witnesses could not identify the robbers. are a number of other inconsistencies He added that there in her written statements and in her testimony before the court and in particular that she said during cross-examination before the lower courts that she went on the same day of the robbery [5 April 1997] to the home of the Applicant for the purpose of identifying him, pretending to buy milk, and that after she has identified him, she went to the police station; whereas during cross-examination, she changed her statement saying that she had in fact been to the home of the Applicant on 9 April 1997 and this led to his arrest on 10 April 1997. The Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that this same witness had also said that the day after the robbery, she was absent for five days, without explaining how, that if she had travelled, she could be there on 5 or 9 April 1997. that she again contradicted her first statement in Swahili saying, on the one hand, that the Applicant was among the robbers at the time of the robbery, and on the other, that no, he was instead picked up along the way when the vehicle she was in, with some thieves was driving from point A to point B . 166. Grounding his argument on the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, according to which corroboration of the evidence of a single witness is required 45 © fey in the