87. By refusing to carry out the DNA test requested by Achok Anudo, the Respondent State missed an opportunity to obtain proof of its claims. lt follows that the decision to deprive the Applicant of his Tanzanian nationality is unjustified. 88.The Court is of the opinion that the evidence provided by the Respondent State concerning the justification for the withdrawal of the Applicant's nationality is not convincing, and therefore holds in conclusion that the deprivation of the Applicant's nationality was arbitrary, contrary to Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. t!. The Applicant's right not to be expelled arbitrarily 89.The Applicant submits that his arrest and expulsion is the result of his refusalto give a bribe to the immigration officers. Subsequentty, he wrote to the Prevention and combating of corruption Bureau to complain. 90.The Applicant maintains that officials of the Respondent State unlawfully seized his passport which was still valid, cancelled it, deleted it from the Register, and then deported him to Kenya. it is unlawful to declare him a "prohibited immigrant" and expel him from his country. He denounces the Tanzanian authorities' 91. He submits that application of Section 11 (1) of the Tanzanian lmmigration Act, which states that "the entry and presence in Tanzania of any prohibited immigrant shall be unlaMul". 92.The Respondent State, for its part, contends that the Applicant's passport was cancelled following an investigation conducted by the lmmigration Department which provided proof that the information used in obtaining the said passport was false. The decision to expel the Applicant was taken by the Minister of Home Affairs, the only one competent to do so. 93.|t submits that the Applicant's stay in its territory was unlawful; that the "prohibited immigrant" notice was issued in accordance with the law and ,q that the Applicant's expulsion was legal 20 @ 9