i.
The decision against him was based on manifest errors on the record , to the extent
that the evidence regarding their Identification a1 the scene of the crime was not
satisfactorily established due to the discrepancies among the prosecutio n witnesses .
li.
During his trial there was non-comp liance with some of the procedure s, such as the
procedure on Preliminary hearing as provided under Section 192(5) of the Criminal
Procedure Act.
iii.
The Prosecutio n fa iled to ca ll important witnesses .
II.
Procedure before the Court
4 . The application dated 29 Decembe r 20 15 was received at the Registry of the Court on
13 January 2016.
5. In accordanc e with Ru le 35(2) and 35(4) of the Rules of the Court, the Registry
forwarded the Application to the United Republic of Tanzania on 18 February 2016 and
invited them to respond to the Application within sixty (60) days and to indicate within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the Application , the names and addresses of its
representatives.
Ill.
Jurisdiction
6. In dealing with an application , the Court has to ascertain that it has jurisdiction on the
merits of the case under Articles 3 and 5 of the Protocol
7. However, in ordering provisiona l measures, the Court need not satisfy itself that it has
jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but simply needs to satisfy itself, pnma facie , that
it has jurisdiction. 1
1
See Application 002/2013 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya
(Orderfor Provisional Measures dated15 March 2013) and Application 006/2012 African
Comm1ss1on on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (Order for Provisional Measures
dated15 March 2013), Apphcat1on 004/2011 African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights v Libya (Order for Provisional Measures dated 25 March 2011)
3