57. The Applicant further argues that where an accused contradicts his statements ab initio, the Court must determine the voluntary nature of the said statements prior to admitting them in evidence. He avers that reliance on the statements contested by the Applicant to justify a conviction constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence set out in Article 7 (1) (b) of the Charter. 58. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant's allegations, pointing out that the Applicant should provide proof to support his claim. According to the Respondent State, the statements made by the Applicant while in detention were compliant with the Criminal Procedure Act Chapter 20 of the Laws of Tanzania and their evidentiary value has been legally admitted and corroborated in accordance with the law of evidence. *** 59. The Court notes that the record before it shows that the Applicant contested his indictment at the High Court. 60. The Court finds, however, that the Applicant claims that there were procedural defects during his interrogation but does not satisfactorily explain how and whether these irregularities vitiated the decicion against him. 61. For the above reasons, the Court relying on the record, holds that the allegation in respect of irregularities in the charge sheet is not established" The allegation relating to an error in law with regard to the testimony of Prosecution Witness 1 62. The Applicant alleges that the Trial Judge and the Appelate Judges relied on the statements of Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1) obtained by a police officer acting in lieu of a Criminal Investigation Police Officer who showed up at the crime scene for the purpose of investigation, in breach of the procedure in this respect. The Respondent disputes these allegations and submits that the Applicant has rovided irrefutable proof. 15 I