000I S (sub-Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules) are not in contention between the Parties 58. The Court also notes that nothing in the record before it indicates that these requirements have not been fulfilled. consequenfly, the court holds that these admissibility requirements have been fully met in the instant case. 59. ln view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the instant Application fulfils a1 the admissibility requirements specified in Article 56 of the Charter and Rute 40 of the Rules, and accordingly declares the same admissible. VII. A. THE MERITS Allegations relating to violation of the right to a fair triat Allegation relating to evidence relied on to identify the Applicant 60. The Applicant submits that the visual identification relied upon by the domestic courts to convict him was erroneous. He avers that the victims who testified as witnesses did not indicate the distance between them and the attackers at the time of the commission of the crime; that they did not mention the location and direction of light of the lamp and that they failed to explain their condition and how they were able to comply with the assailants' order after the sudden attack. 61. The Applicant further adds that even though the victims claimed to have known the attackers, he was arrested after two days of the commission of the crime despite his presence in the area. He submits that the victims' testimony that the attackers took time to count the money in front of them does not pass the test of common sense, as the robbers would not do that in front of victims while being aware that the victims know them. Finally, the Applicant argues that Mr yusuf Bwiru, the prosecution witness who arrived at the scene of the crime did not claim to have seen the robbers but just heard their names from the victims. 62. On its part, the Respondent State reiterates that the Court is not empowered to evaluate the evidence of the Trial Court but rather ider if duly established l5 l,' I