principle of law, the right to seize a national court, but the fact that he had been arrested and then expelled immediately to Kenya, did not afford him the possibility of exercising such a remedy. Besides, when he later found refuge in the no-man's land, it was very difficult for him to exercise this remedy. 115. The Court finds in conclusion that, by declaring the Applicant an "illegal immigrant" thereby denying him Tanzanian nationality, which he has, until then enjoyed, without the possibility of an appeat before a national court, the Respondent State violated his right to have his cause heard by a judge within the meaning of Article z(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the lccpR. 116. The Court notes further that the Tanzanian Citizenship Act contains gaps in as much as it does not allow citizens by birth to exercise judicial remedy where their nationality is challenged as required by international law. lt is the opinion of the Court that the Respondent State has the obligation to fillthe said gaps. B. Other alleged violations 117. The Applicant submits that the Respondent State since 1 September, 2014, abandoned him in the "lawress no man's land" in inhuman, humiliating and degrading conditions, characterized by lack of drinking water, food and security, thus subjecting him to numerous physical and psychological ordeals. 1 18. He also alleges that the Respondent State violated a number of his rights guaranteed under various human rights instruments among which are the African charter on Human and peoples, Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the lnternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He refers specifically to: the right to wellbeing, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Article 16 of the Charter); the right to free movement and to choose one's residence in one's country (Article 12 of Cha the right to [\ 25 I ,1 O