prosecution was adequate to support conviction or should be corroborated by additional sources of evidence. 89. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ allegations that their conviction and sentence were based on unreliable evidence and finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Charter. ii. Allegation that the defence of alibi was not properly considered 90. The Applicants argue that their right to a fair trial was violated by the Respondent State in that their defence of alibi was not properly considered by the domestic Courts. In this regard, the First Applicant claims that the High Court wrongly rejected his defence of alibi on the basis that he failed to notify the prosecution as required by the CPA. He maintains that he had in fact informed the courts, at the preliminary hearing stage, that he no longer resided in the same village where the crime was committed and that this was supported by the second Prosecution Witness (PW II). Similarly, the Second Applicant claims that the failure of the High Court to consider his defence of alibi caused him a miscarriage of justice. 91. The Respondent State disputes the Applicants’ contentions and asserts that they should be put to strict proof. It avers that the trial court examined the Applicants’ defence of alibi but rejected it as it was not reliable. The Respondent State asserts that the First Applicant did not raise the same defence at the High Court, but the Second Applicant raised it after the Prosecution closed its case and that he had not given a notice of intention to rely on such defence before the hearing of the case, as required by Section 194 (4) of its CPA. The Respondent State submits that the High Court, using its discretion, still looked at his defence of alibi and concluded that it was not strong enough to cast any doubt on the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, it submits that the Court of Appeal also examined the record and reached the same conclusion. 24