granted free legal assistance, and that he testified in his own defence and exercised his right of appeal all the way to the Court of Appeal. In light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that his right to be presumed innocent was not violated. 122. In relation to his identification by one eyewitness at night with limited visibility, the Court notes from the record of proceedings that the Applicant was clearly identified by his neighbour and wife of the deceased, as the assailant who had grown up with her sons and used to play with them. She clearly identified three (3) out of the five (5) bandits who ransacked her residence, robbed the couple, and in the process killed her husband and battered her. 123. On 23 July 2010, the High Court, after hearing the four (4) prosecution witnesses and assessing the five (5) exhibits produced, ruled that the evidence adduced had established a prima facie case to put the accused persons to their defence. Thereafter, the Court informed the Applicant and his co-accused of their right to give evidence and to call witnesses in their defence as required under Section 293(2)(a) and (b) of the CPA. His lawyer responded that the Applicant would give evidence under oath and had no witnesses to call. 124. Furthermore, the Court observes that at the conclusion of the trial, all the three (3) assessors issued a joint opinion to the effect that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it was the Applicant who murdered Mr. Clemence Mbasa and no one else. The assessors based their decision on the fact that the wife of the deceased clearly described the clothes the Applicant was wearing on the fateful day, the attack on her husband, the conversation that transpired during the robbery and the fact that the Applicant knew about the coffee sale, having admitted during the trial that he helped the couple sell the coffee. 125. The Court observes that the testimony on the Applicant’s clothes was corroborated by two other witnesses, PW2 and PW3. Furthermore, 34