i. Save for the trial in 2010, the Respondent State did not provide him with language assistance at critical stages of the case such as when he was interviewed and recorded his statement at the police station while at the time of his arrest he only properly spoke and understood French. ii. The Respondent State did not ensure or conduct a proper, fair and professional and diligent investigation of the matter. Consequently, several pieces of evidence which could have led to other suspects besides him were not investigated or were simply destroyed in complicity with the investigation officers. Had these pieces of evidence been investigated or presented to the High Court, they would have proved that he was in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. iii. His right to presumption of innocence was "savagely ignored" in this case. There was a clear presumption of guilt which breached his right to a fair trial. iv. The Respondent State did not provide him with an attorney at the time of recording his statement at the police even though he requested for one. Consequently, the statement recorded was manipulated and used against him during the trial. v. The Respondent State never facilitated consular assistance. vi. After his arrest, the Respondent State failed to secure his properties in his house in Arusha and, as a result, the said properties were arbitrary disposed of. vii. He was arrested in October 2005 but it was not until 2010 that he was actually convicted, that is after a period of almost five years. The whole trial process was unduly prolonged, which constitutes an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time. viii. He has suffered a lot of mental anguish as a result of the initial arrest, charges being dropped and subsequently another case being opened against him. 4