0008 1 3 system as national courts; and that it does not apply "the same law as the Tanzanian national courts, that is, Tanzanian law".2a 101. The Court also recalls its decision in Atex Thomasv Tanzania where it stated that "an order for the Applicant's release from prison can be made only under very specific and/or, compelling circumstances"2s. This would be the case, for example, if an Applicant sufficiently demonstrates or the Court itself establishes from its findings that the Applicant's arrest or conviction is based entirely on arbitrary considerations and his continued imprisonment would occasion a miscarriage of justice. ln such circumstances, the Court has pursuant to Article 2T (1) of the Protocol to order "all appropriate measures", including the release of the Applicant. 102. ln this regard, the Court refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the lnter-American Court of Human Rights. ln their case law, both Courts, considering the nature of the violations established and in order to assist states to comply with their human rights obligations, have exceptionally requested Respondent States to ensure the release of individuals with respect to some specific violations where no other options are available to remedy or to put an end to the violations.26 103. ln the instant case, the Court observes that the Respondent has violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial contrary to Article 7(1) of the Charter by failing to afford him legal aid, denying his witnesses to be heard and convicting him in the face of insufficient and contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses. 104. The Court considers that in spite of the fact that it has found these violations of the Charter, according to the record before the Court and taking into account the nature and scope of the violations and the nature of the offence, it cannot in this instant case order the Respondent State to release the Applicant from prison. 2a Mohamed Abubakariv. Tanzania Judgment, op. cit., para.2g. Alex Thomas v. Tanzaniajudgment, op. cit., para.lST 2a Del Rio Prada v. spain, European court of Human Rights, Judgment of 10 July 2012, para.139, Assanidze v. Georgia tGC] - 71503t01. Judgment 8 April 2004, para.204. case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, lnter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of para. 84 17, 25 24 Y @- fs