2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(1) concrete evidence to support its assertion that the Applicant has other nationalities. 48 The African Court therefore found that the applicant's right to Tanzanian nationality had been violated, contrary to art 5 of the African Charter and art 15 of UDHR. The African Court went on to consider the applicant’s right to liberty, as he remained in prison long after the expiry of a two-year prison term. Given that imprisonment was based on the assertion that he was not a national, and the African Court believed that the respondent state had not provided sufficient evidence that this was the case, his detention was therefore unlawful and in violation of art 6 of the African Charter. 49 For similar reasons, the African Court found a violation of art 12 of the African Charter on freedom of movement. 50 CONCLUSION The African Court in Penessis affirmed its commitment to protection of the right to a nationality established by art 15 of the UDHR, in line with the reasoning in Anudo. The African Court drew on African Commission jurisprudence to state that the right to a nationality is implied within art 5 of the African Charter on the ‘right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status’. 51 It also affirmed views previously developed in its own decisions and those of the African Commission on the burden of proof in such cases. 52 The African Court held that the burden of proof will be reversed, and fall on the respondent state, once a person has shown prima facie evidence that he or she holds the status claimed (in this case as a Tanzanian national). 53 In reaching this view, the African Court restated that it ‘is not an appeal court with respect to decisions rendered by national courts’, but that this does not preclude it from examining relevant proceedings in the national courts in order to determine whether they are in consonance with the standards set out in the Charter or any other applicable human rights instrument. 54 The judgment does not, however, go on to consider the conduct of the proceedings in Tanzania, and whether they respected fair trial standards guaranteed by art 7 of the African Charter and by other applicable human rights treaties — including the question of burden of proof under domestic law. Rather, the African Court addressed directly the question of the validity of the documents and the strength of the respondent state’s case. Assessing the evidence, the African 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 ibid 27 [102]. ibid 29 [109]. ibid 32 [125]. ibid 24 [89], citing Open Society Justice Initiative v Côte d’Ivoire (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm 318/06, 28 February 2015) 26 [96]. Penessis (n 1) 24 [91], citing Kennedy Owino Onyachi v United Republic of Tanzania (African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, App No.003/2015, 28 September 2017) 37 [142]. See also at 25 [94], citing Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Open Society Justice Initiative (on behalf of Children of Nubian Descent in Kenya) v the Government of Kenya (African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Comm 002/2009, 22 March 2011); Amnesty International v Zambia (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Comm 212/98, 5 May 1999) [41], Penessis (n 1) 26 [96]. ibid 9 [32], [33]. 177