1. An expert witness must be within a recognized field of expertise; 2. Evidence must be based on reliable principles, 3. The expert witness must be qualified in the discipline. 75. The Respondent argued that the expert witness the Applicant intended to call does not meet these three requirements as he was not an expert in any field of law, let alone criminal procedure, with renowned writings that have given substantial contribution to the knowledge of criminal law in Tanzania. 76. On this basis, the Respondent called on the Court to exercise caution and disqualify the witness as an expert. The Position of the Applicant 77. The Applicant opposed the Respondent's preliminary objection on three grounds 78. The first ground is that the Respondent's objection to the expert witness is not in good faith as it has been done very late in the proceedings, despite the Respondent being aware as far back as 23 September 2013 that the Applicant intended to call the expert witness. 79. The Respondent in support of the objection, cited Rule 53(2) and Article19 (1) × 19:Disqualification 1.Judges may not take part in matters in which, in the opinion of the Court, they or members of their family have a direct interest or in which they have previously taken part as agents, counsel or advocates, or as members of a national or international court or an investigatory committee, or in any other capacity. of the Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, respectively, which provide for disqualification of experts on the basis that they have a direct interest in the matter. The Applicant maintained that the Respondent did not put forward any evidence to show what, if any, relationship exists between the expert and the matter currently before the Court. Unlike the lnter-Amencan Court of Human Rights, this Court's Rules of Procedure do not contain any explicit provisions on disqualifications of experts. In view of this lacuna, the Applicant urged the Court, as a human rights court to adopt a liberal and victim-centred approach to this issue towards ensuring that truth and justice is achieved. 80. The second ground argued by the Applicant was that the expert witness was competent and credible. He is a Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Dar es Salaam with relevant scholarly research and professional expertise. The Applicant also called on the Court to apply Rule 45(1) of the Rules which empowers the Court to call for "any evidence which in its opinion may provide clarification of the facts of a case or which in its view is likely to assist it in carrying out its task" to admit the oral evidence of the expert as well as the particulars of his qualification including his Curriculum Vitae. 81. The third ground on which the Applicant based his argument, was that the testimony of the expert was intended to be limited in scope to issues of domestic law which would assist the Court in reaching a fair and just decision on the same. This would therefore not be prejudicial to the Respondent. In addition, According to the Applicant, the Court may order that the expert testimony be limited to specific areas of competence. This would be in line with the approach adopted by various international courts and tribunals such as in the case of Prosecutor v Bagasora et al, ICTR Case Number 98/41T, Decision of 20 September 2004. 82. On these grounds, the Applicant pleaded for the admission of Professor Leonard P. Shaidi as an expert witness in this case. The Court's Ruling on the objection to the expert witness 83 Pursuant to Rule 46(5) of the Rules, which provides that the "Court shall rule on any challenge arismg from an objection to a witness or an experf', the Court begins by ruling on the objection raised by the Respondent State regarding the admissibility of the testimony of the expert witness proposed by the Applicant. 84. Firstly, the Court notes that the Rules do not contain any special provision, and no conditions or time limits have been laid down, for objecting to a witness or an expert. 85. Under such circumstances as far as the present case is concerned the Respondent was entitled to raise an objection at any stage of the proceedings 86. As a consequence, the Respondent State in this case had the possibility to challenge the Applicant's expert witness prior to his testimony. 12