"!r 00021 6 on the offender...". The Applicant avers that the thirty (30) years prison sentence was not applicable at the time the offence of which he is accused was committed; that at the time, the maximum sentence applicable was fifteen (15) years. 97.The Respondent State refutes the Applicant's allegation, arguing that in Criminal Case No. 12311997, the Applicant was accused of armed robbery, contrary to Sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code, that at the time of his conviction and sentencing , the law known as the Minimum Senfence Act of 1972 had been amended by Law No. 6/1994; that this new law of 1994 repealed the 15 years sentence and introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of thirty (30) years in cases of armed robbery and robbery with violence. *** 98.The Court notes that, in his Reply, the Applicant affirms having taken note of the Respondent State's observations on this argument. Furthermore, the Court recalls that it has already noted that in the United Republic of Tanzania, the minimum sentence applicable for armed robbery or robbery with violence is 30 years imprisonment since the 1994 law.1a 99.The Court therefore holds, in conclusion, that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(2) of the Charter and that the Applicant's conviction and sentence to thirty (30) years imprisonment was in accordance with the law. VII!. REPARATION 100. As stated in paragraph 18 of this Judgment, the Applicant prays the Court to: (i) grant him adequate reparation pursuant to Article 27 of the Protocol; (ii) order the 1a Mohamed Abubakariv. Tanzania Judgment. op. cit. para.210; Christopher Jonas v. Tanzania Judgment. op. cit. para. 85. 23 \s