Applicants on TV before the date of the said parade. However, the Applicants further allege that their images were disseminated not only on TV but also through newspapers before the parade, which the Respondent has not directly refuted. 86.lt is a matter of common sense that in criminal proceedings, identification parade is not necessary and cannot be carried out if witnesses previously knew or saw a suspect before the identification parade. The Court notes that this is also the practice in the jurisdiction of the Respondent State 14 . 87.ln the instant case, the records of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal do not show that this requirement was fulfilled. Although some of the witnesses provided affidavits stating that they had not watched TV before the identification parade, neither of them (including PW 8 whose only testimony was used to sustain conviction) clearly stated that he/she did not see the images of the Applicants before the said parade in local newspapers. This implies that the identification parade was conducted despite the fact that the witnesses may have had a chance to see the Applicants in local newspapers. 88.ln this regard, the Respondent has not supplied evidence showing that the domestic courts took measures to verify whether or not the witnesses read newspapers. 15 In light of the probability that witnesses may have seen the Applicants on local TV channels and newspapers, the safeguards which applied in the assessment of the evidence were inadequate. 16 Given that the conviction of the Applicants depended only on evidence from a single witness testimony obtained during this identification parade, there is an additional reason to doubt the context in which they were convicted. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the procedural irregularities in the identification parade affected the fairness of the Applicants' trial and conviction. 89. The Court, therefore, holds that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial of the Applicants under Article 7 (1) of the Charter. 14 Republic v Mwango Manaa (1936) 3 East African Court of Appeals 29. See also the Police General Order (PGO) No.232 of Tanzania. One of the conditions to be satisfied for a proper identification parade is that the witnesses shall not see the accused before the parade. 15 Rejoinder, p. 9 16 In the same sense, Abubakari Case, paras.181-184. 24