00 082 4 52. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the Applicant is a layman in matters of law, indigent and incarcerated without the benefit of legal counsel or legal assistance.s The Court holds that these circumstances sufficienfly justify the filing of the Application one (1) year and thirteen (13) days after the Court of Appeal decision. 53. ln view of the aforesaid, the Court dismisses the objection to admissibility that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time. B. Conditions of admissibility not in contention between the Parties 54. The Court notes that the conditions regarding the identity of the Applicant, the language used in the Application, the nature of the evidence and the non bis in idem principle as set out in sub Rules 1, 2, 3,4 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules, are not in contention between the parties. 55. The Court also notes that nothing in the pleadings submitted to it by the parties suggests that any of the above requirements has not been met in the instant case. Consequently, the Court holds that the requirements under consideration have been fully met in the instant case. 56. ln light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant Application fulfils all admissibility requirements in terms of Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules, and accordingly declares the same admissibte. VII. MERITS A. Alleged violations of the right to a fair trial 57. The Applicant alleges the violations of his right to a fair trial, namely: (i) the failure to hear his witnesses, (ii) the fact that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence and conflicting statements of the prosecution witnesses, and the lack of access to legal aid. 8 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment, op. cit.,74 13 T Y(\ \-a S