000 92,2 findings of the Commission communicated by a letter to the Applicants were said to have been made following a preliminary investigation rather than after a full investigation into the matter. ln these circumstances, the Court is thus not in a position to conclude that there would have been a substantially different outcome in the decisions of the domestic courts, had this letter been available during the trial and appellate proceedings. 74.|n view of the above, the Court therefore finds that the allegation according to which the Applicants' culpability was based on mistaken identity is not founded and therefore the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter. I iii) Allegation that the Applicants were isolated during the domestic proceedings 75.The Applicants contend that they were isolated during the procedures when the decision of the domestic courts were rendered and this violated their fundamental rights. 76.The Respondent State denies the allegation and argues that the Applicants were present during their trial from the time the armed robbery charge was read out to them on 7 May 2001 in which they pleaded not guilty, up to the conclusion of the trial on 16 November 2001. The Respondent State also avers that the Applicants o were also present when their appeal was heard at the High Court on 12 August 2002. The Respondent State further indicates that the Applicants were, except at the Court of Appeal, represented by a lawyer and at the Court of Appeal, they were not provided with legal counsel because they did not apply for it, as required under Rule 31 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. *** 23 Y