000395 was despite the fact that the PW 1 denied that he made statements on the day of the incident, again disclosing some inconsistencies and casting doubts on the veracity of PW 4's statements. 63. Nevertheless, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal subsequently addressed these and other related issues raised by the Applicants and determined that the evidence was enough to convict the Applicants. This Court is of the opinion that the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated the evidence does not per se reveal any manifest error or resulted in a miscarriage of justice to the Applicants and hence, requires the Court's deference.la ln addition, the Applicants' other allegations questioning the credibility of the testimony of PW 5 relate to specific details of evidence which this Court is not positioned to assess and thus, leaves o this role to the national courts, which have already made their determinations by examining the particular circumstances of the case. 64.|n view of the above, the Court thus finds that, the allegation relating to the Applicants' conviction on the basis of contradictory testimony is not founded and therefore, the Respondent has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii) Allegation that the Applicant's conviction was based on mistaken identity 65.The Applicants submit that their conviction was based on a mistake of fact with a regard to the identity of the actual perpetrators of the crimes in question. The Applicants allege that this was substantiated by the "unfolding truth" that emerged from the investigation of the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRGG) of the Respondent State, which reveals that the victim (PW 1)was later paid compensation by the real burglars under the aegis of the local authority. According to the Applicants, this was not included in the record of the court 14 tbid, s 73. 20 Y