1) The allegation that the issue of the Applicant’s alibi has not been adequately addressed by national courts 186. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant argued that the issue of alibi invoked by the Applicant before the national courts was not adequately addressed by the latter. He stated further that the Applicant indeed: maintained that between 20 March and 7 April 1997, he was in admission at the Muhimbili hospital in Dar es Salaam, hundreds of kilometres from the crime scene, and that he could therefore not have been in Moshi on 5 April 1997; and in that regard, he tendered two pieces of evidence, namely, a bus ticket showing the transport to Dar es Salaam and a discharge certificate issued by the hospital upon his leaving the hospital - a certificate which he handed to the investigating officer. The Counsel for the Applicant indicated that while admitting the bus ticket in evidence, the trial magistrate at the same time claimed that the alibi had not been notified to the court as required by law, and that it is therefore an after-thought. He emphasised the point that in regard to the discharge sheet issued by the hospital, that although the trial magistrate had accepted the same as evidence, the appellate magistrate held that there was no discharge sheet; that despite the fact that the Applicant had indicated that he had handed the certificate to the investigating officer, the latter was testify, despite the circumstances, Applicant's request to this the issue of the alibi evidence effect. has He not been never called to concluded that properly treated in the by the national courts, which therefore cannot persuade themselves that they properly convicted the Applicant for the very serious offence of armed robbery. 187. At the same Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that, he had in any case raised the issue of the alibi from the onset of the investigation procedure, handing his client’s bus ticket and hospital discharge sheet to the investigating officer. 188. In the course of that same Public Hearing, the representative of the Respondent State argued that, with respect to the hospital discharge sheet, the Applicant contradicted himself by saying, on the one hand, that it is his relatives who would produge the N¢& e% >. SZ S AO