argument according to which the 150. The Court therefore dismisses Respondent's Applicants were partly responsible for the delay . iii. Conduct of the domestic judicial authorities e that at the Resident Magistrate's 151 . During the public hearing, the Applicants alleg the life of the Case , adding that Court in Moshi, "there were over 55 adjournments in testified, and throughout the in the first four years of the case , only one witness length of the trials ... , up to a cases, "the Applicants constantly questioned the very reason for seeking adjournment year after they had been charged, the most frequent , that investigations were still was that they were still constituting the Police file rtion of the Applicants. ongoing". The Respondent did not challenge this asse the matter before the High Court, 152. The Applicants further state that in an effort to push counsel in vain, so they wrote they wrote and attempted to communicate with their esting it to set a date for the a letter to the High Court on 16 August 2013, requ al but that letter has not been hearing of their matter as ordered by the Court of Appe responded to. trying to delay the process, there 153. Even assuming that the defence counsel were courts to ensure that all those rests a special duty upon the authorities of domestic avoid any unnecessary delay . who play a role in the proceedings do their utmost to ely monitor and ensure that Judges also have the right, as well as the duty , to activ nable time requirement. The judicial proceedings before them comply with the reaso ani v. the United Kingdom, for European Court of Human Rights has held, in Cusc 44