[2019] AfCHPR 40

[2019] AfCHPR 40

The Court found that the Applicant exhausted all available domestic remedies, as constitutional petitions and review procedures in Tanzania are extraordinary and not mandatory before approaching the Court. The Court held that the time taken to file the application was reasonable given the Applicant's incarceration and lack of legal assistance. On the merits, the Court determined that the domestic courts did not err in evaluating the identification evidence or in considering the Applicant's alibi, and thus no violation of the right to a fair trial occurred on those grounds. However, the Court found that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter by failing to provide the...

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 40
Parties
Applicant: Majid Goa alias Vedastus; Respondent: United Republic of Tanzania
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Case Number
Application No. 025/2015
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment (merits and Reparations)
Outcome
Application partly allowed; violation of right to free legal assistance found; other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Legal Aid, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Non Discrimination, Equality Before the Law
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Fair Trial Legal Aid Exhaustion of Local Remedies Non Discrimination Equality Before the Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Majid Goa alias Vedastus

Applicant

United Republic of Tanzania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment (merits and Reparations)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial by failing to consider inconsistencies in identification evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent State failed to consider the Applicant's defence of alibi.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's right to free legal assistance was violated.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicant exhausted all available domestic remedies, as constitutional petitions and review procedures in Tanzania are extraordinary and not mandatory before approaching the Court. The Court held that the time taken to file the application was reasonable given the Applicant's incarceration and lack of legal assistance. On the merits, the Court determined that the domestic courts did not err in evaluating the identification evidence or in considering the Applicant's alibi, and thus no violation of the right to a fair trial occurred on those grounds. However, the Court found that the Respondent State violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter by failing to provide the...

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed; violation of right to free legal assistance found; other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • The Respondent State is to pay the Applicant Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred Thousand (TZS 300,000) as fair compensation for moral prejudice, free from tax, within six months of notification of the judgment, with interest on arrears at the Central Bank of Tanzania rate if delayed.
  • The Respondent State is to submit a report on implementation within six months of notification of the judgment.