00032 3 would potentially lead the trial or appellate court to reverse its decision or make substantially different findings. 70.ln the instant case, the Court notes from the file that the Applicants raise an allegation that they are not the real perpetrator of the crime they were charged with and they were convicted as a result of a mistake relating to their identity. ln this regard, the Applicants indicate that the prosecution witnesses admitted to have erred in identifying the real culprits and they apologised to the Applicants' relatives for the same. The Applicants substantiate their allegation by submitting a letter which they have received from the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRGG), o a governmental organ in the Respondent State established under the Constitution, with a mandate of promoting and protecting human rights. 71.The Court observes that in the said letter, which displays the Commission's official stamp, the Commission wrote to the Applicants indicating that from its preliminary investigation into the matter, it had established that the true perpetrators of the crime were other persons and these other persons paid a compensation of six (6) cows and Tanzania Shillings one hundred and twenty thousand (120,000 TZS) to the victim. o 72.The key issues for determination therefore are whether this letter from the Commission is properly before it as evidence and can be relied upon in determining the present Application and whether it could be considered to have such value that, had it been available during the trial and appellate proceedings, it would have substantially affected the outcome of the decisions of the national courts of the Respondent State. 73.The Court notes from the Commission's letter that the Applicants were convicted of crimes committed by other persons and this casts some doubt on the Applicant's culpability and conviction. However, as indicated in paragraph 16 above, the 22 .-)-'-- S Y'N