00135 ? 84.|n light of the foregoing, this Court considers that the manner in which the domestic courts, particularly the Court of Appeal, assessed the evidence does not reveal any apparent or manifest error, which occasioned a miscarriage of the justice to the Applicants. 85. As a consequence of the above, the Court holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicants' right to a fair hearing protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter. iii. Right to be heard by a competent court 86.The Applicants allege that their right to be heard by a competent court was violated due to the fact that the preliminary hearing and trial were conducted before two different judges. lt is their contention that doing so was not in compliance with the provisions of section 192(5) of the criminal procedure Act, which requires that the same judge should preside over both the preliminary hearing and trlal. 87.The Respondent state on its part avers that the Applicants failed to properly interpret the provisions of the law. The Respondent State submits that the law does not make it compulsory that both phases of the proceedings should be presided over by the same judge. lt further submits that the Applicants should have raised the issue during the trial. 88. Article z(1)(a) of the charter provides that everyone shall have "the right to an appeal to competent national organs of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force". 89. The court notes that the provisions of section 192(s) of the Tanzanian criminal Procedure Act whose interpretation is in contention between the Parties reads: "wherever possible, the accused person shall be tried immediately after the 25 @--