209. In the instant case, the law applicable at the time of the offence (armed robbery), that is April 1997, is the Tanzanian Penal Code and the Minimum Sentences Act of 1972 as amended in 1989 and then in 1994. 210. It follows from Section 286 of this Penal Code that a person convicted of armed robbery is liable to a penalty of imprisonment for life, with or without corporal punishment. It also follows from Section 5 (b) of the Minimum Sentences Act that the minimum sanction for this offence is thirty years in prison. These provisions, read together, show that the applicable penalty for armed robbery was clearly a thirty (30) year minimum prison sentence. 211. Furthermore, the High Court judgment of 1 June 1999 recounts that the penalty imposed in this case is the minimum set by law for convicted offenders. 212. Moreover, it follows from the records that Act No. 4 of 2004, which the Court of Appeal could have applied in its judgment of 5 October 2004 did not amend the sentence applicable to armed robbery. 213. For all the foregoing reasons, in pronouncing and upholding the thirty years imprisonment sentence against the Applicant in the instant case, the Tanzanian national courts have not violated the principle of non-retroactivity of penalties. L) The allegation that the Judgment of the District Court [1997] was not pronounced in open court 214. In his Application, the Applicant claims that the Court Judgment by which he was sentenced in 1998, was not pronounced in public, in contravention of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Act. kkEs be S & A O°