000821 actually want them to appear on his behalf or because he did not have the means to obtain their attendance. It was also desirable on the part of the Respondent State's judicial authorities to provide, suo motu, sufficient information in this regard to the accused, where he is indigent, in detention and without legal aid. 67. The Court therefore holds from the foregoing that the Respondent State has violated the Applicant's right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter by failing to ensure the appearance of his witnesses. ii. Allegations of insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements 68. The Applicant submits that the evidence presented at the trial court and relied upon to convict him was based only on the victim's (PWa) testimony, who claimed she was at home playing with a friend (PWs) and that the Applicant went to PW2's house (the victim's mother) and told her to follow him to his house where he promised to give her one hundred Tanzania Shillings (TZS 100); that halfiruay to his house, the Applicant took her to a thicket where he raped her and threatened to stab and beat her with a stick if she told anyone what happened. 69. The Applicant denies having committed such a crime, affirming that on the day in question, he was at the house of the victim's mother (PW2), together with three friends to consume alcohol ("pombe" also known as "Gongo") at around 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm. He then amended his initial statement and said that they had arrived at PW2's house at around 3:45 pm, 45 minutes after they had left their own houses. 70. He disputes the Respondent State's claims regarding examination of evidence, and prays the Court to re-examine the evidence, taking into account the doubts he has raised over the statements of the Respondent State's Attorney. *** f