believed by the trial court and by this court on appeal, who testified that it was the appellant and nobody else who shot the deceased it cannot be said with any certainty that they are likely to be believed purely on the strength of medical opinions. This court cannot find that there is no doubt – or even a probability – that the evidence of the medical specialists would reverse the trial court‟s verdict and that therefore thre is a miscarriage of justice. The evidence which the appellant now seeks to lead does not, on both aspects give rise to one of the AC HP R exceptional cases where the court, being functus officio, might be constrained to re-open the case.” 188. The African Commission finds that the direct evidence of the eye witnesses at the trial to the effect that it was the appellant and nobody else who shot the deceased was uncontroverted both at the lower court and before the court of appeal. Contrary to the assertion of Counsel for Kobedi, the court of appeal did not rely on the testimony of an unqualified forensic expert but based it‟s decision on the unchallenged evidence of eye witnesses. 189. The African Commission consequently agrees with the conclusion of the court of appeal that “the evidence which the appellant now seeks to lead does not give rise to one of the exceptional cases where the court being functus Officio might be constrained to re-open the case.” 190. In the light of the foregoing the African Commission finds that the Court of appeal did not misdirect itself by invoking the doctrine of functus officio and refusing to re-open the trial of Kobedi and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the circumstance of the case. The result is that the right to fair trial under Article 7(1) (b) was not vitiated. 52