000 822 the competent authorities of the Respondent State also have the responsibility to ensure the presence of the witnesses whom the authorities intend to hear. 63. The Court notes that in all proceedings, more specifically, in criminal matters, a court seized of a case must hear both the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses. lf it does not do so, it must provide the grounds for its decision. !n this regard, the Court observes Section 231(4) of Criminal Procedure Act of the Respondent State contains provisions which allow nationat courts to take measures to ensure the appearance of defence witnesses where the absence of such witnesses is not due to the fault of the accused and that where the witnesses appear, there is the likelihood that they would adduce evidence in his favour.10 64. ln the instant case, it emerges from the file that the Applicant called witnesses on three (3) occasions without success, and in the end, he gave up on getting them to appear11. However, he claims before this Court that the reason why he gave up on calling his witnesses was because the judicial authorities did not inform him that they could assist him to obtain their appearance. 65. The Court is of the opinion that even if the Applicant has given up on calling his witnesses, the fact remains that witnesses did not cease to be necessary in the course of the trial proceedings to ensure equality of arms. However, this being the case, the reasons as to why the trial court decided not to take the appropriate measures to hear the Applicant's witnesses are not provided anywhere in the record of the proceedings. 66. The Court is of the view that it was necessary for the Respondent State's judicial authorities to be more proactive, in particular, in ascertaining whether the Applicant no longer intended to call his witnesses either because he did not 10 Section 231 (4) of the Criminal procedure Act provides as follows: "lf the accused person states that he has witnesses to call but that they are not present in Co urt, and the Court is satisfied that the absence of such witnesses is not due to any faults or neglect of the accused person and that there is likelihood that they could, if present, give material evi dence on behalf of the accused person, the Court may adjourn the trial and issue process or take other steps to compel attendance of such witness.,, 11 At the hearing of 24 November 2010 before Resident Magistrate Court of Bukoba, the Applicant declared: "l have failed to get my witness. I am no longer intendi ng to ca em. I am closing my defence case". See page 23 of the document attached to Crim 14 before the Court of Appeal 15 hs