00034t 7. Aggrieved by the verdict, the Applicants filed a request for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeal on the ground that the judgment contained "manifest errors" and that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice. On 19 March 2015, the Court of Appeal declared their request inadmissible asserting that the application for review was not filed within the time prescribed by law. B. Alleged Violations 8. The Applicants submit that both their conviction and the refusal of the Court of Appeal to review the convictions on the basis that their application for review was filed out of time contravene the provisions of the Charter and the 1977 Tanzanian a Constitution. ln this regard, the Applicants allege that they were convicted based on a mistaken identity and solely on the basis of incriminating evidence of visual identification which is "perjured, concocted and privy". According to the Applicants: i) The primary victim (PW 1) of the alleged crime contradicted himself while testifying and that the victim saw other burglars rather than them. He named them only on 4 March 2001 even though he claimed to have identified them on the day of the incident, that is, 25 February 2001. ln addition, though he denied having made his first statement on 26 February 2001, which was tendered in the trial court, his co-witness (PW 3) confirmed that the complainant (PW 1) made two statements, the first on the day of the incident without naming the suspects and the second at a later date mentioning names o of suspects. ii) With regard to the second witness (PW 2), although he claimed to have been present at the scene of the crime, "the trial court had recorded his demeanorwhile testifying that at the same time he was laughing and joking as [if he]was not serious of what he [was]talking [about]", thus, proving that the witness was lying. 4 v S "hN^( "f