the Applicant was pre during that hearing. In its written submissions. the Respondent sought to explain this discrepancy. The Respondent requested the Court to accept its document and then conduct a further enquiry as to the veracity of the second document it presented dunng the hearing. The Applicant objected to the introduction of the Respondent's document. The Court sustained the Applicant's objection and expressed its disapproval of the Respondent's conduct. 65. Some of the Criminal Cases against the Applicant were discharged under Section 91(1), 98(a) and 225(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Applicant was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 915 of 2007, Criminal Case No. 933 of 2009 and Criminal Case No. 712 of 2009. The Respondent has lodged a notice of intention to appeal in Criminal Case No. 712 of 2009. There were also two other cases against the Applicant that were dismissed under Section 225(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, being Criminal Case No. 1027 of 2007 and Criminal Case No. 716 of 2009. Criminal Case No. 883 of 2008 was withdrawn under Section 91(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Case No 1029 of 2007 was withdrawn under Section 98(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Applicant's Prayers 66. In his Application dated 30 September 2011: 1. The Applicant seeks a declaration that the Respondent deprived him of his right to freedom and to live as a free person. 2. The Applicant asks that his property be restored and he be adequately compensated for damage and loss. 3. The Applicant seeks reparation. 4. The Applicant seeks any order the Court may deem fit to grant 67. In the reply dated 15 May 2013 filed by the Applicant's representatives, PALU, to the Respondent's Response the prayers are that: : The Applicant states that he seeks the following reliefs from this Honourable Court: a. A declaration that the Respondent was in violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 7(1), 14 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples ' Rights; b. An order for reparations and compensation includmg for being deprived of his property; and c. Any other Order the Court deems fit to make." The Respondent's Prayers 68. In the Reply to the Application dated 30 August 2012: The Respondent prays the Court to give/grant the following orders with respect to the admissibility of the Application: 1. That the Application should be dismissed as it has not met the admissibility requirements under Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, Article 56 of the Charter and Article 6(2) of the Protocol 2. That the Application be dismissed in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules of Court 3. That the Application has not invoked the 1urisdiction of the Court 4. That the costs of the Application be borne by the Applicant With respect to the merits of the Application, the prayers are: 1. That the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania has not violated the Applicant 's right to own property 10