94.ln the present case, the records of the domestic judicial proceedings clearly evince that the Applicants had invoked an alibi during their trial, and the domestic Courts of the Respondent indeed considered the issue. The Court of Appeal specifically addressed the matter and rejected the defense after weighing it up vis-a-vis the testimony given by the witness PW 8 and found that this witness's testimony is strong enough to dispel the defense of alibi raised by the Applicants. 2o 95. The Court however recalls its finding above that the testimony of the single Prosecution Witness (PW8) was obtained following an identification parade which was marred by procedural irregularity. Therefore, the conviction of the Applicants relying solely on this single witness (PW8)'s testimony and on the basis of an uncorroborated assumption that the Applicants might have used other illegal ("panaya") routes to enter Tanzania did not amount to due and serious consideration of the Applicants' alibi defense and thus, violated their right to defense under article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter. 41 The Allegation relating to the Applicants' conviction and sentencing to a 30 years' imprisonment i) Applicants' Submissions 96. The Applicants allege that their conviction and sentencing to a 3D-years imprisonment term was unconstitutional and contrary to Article 7(2) of the Charter. ii} Respondent's Submissions 97. The Respondent denies the Applicants' allegations and submits that the conviction and sentencing of the Applicants was based on Sections 285 & 286 of the Respondent's Penal Code Cap 16 (which define the offences of robbery and armed robbery), and the Minimum Sentences Act of 1972 as amended by Act No 1D of 1989 and later by Act No. 6 of 1994 (which provides the punishment of the offences of robbery and armed robbery). It submits that the conviction and sentencing of the Applicants were done according to the Respondent's applicable laws and therefore not contrary to the Constitution and 20 See Court of Appeals Judgment, pp. 20-22 26