oofi?? 1 2. On 6 July 2018, the Registry informed the Parties that, during its 49th Ordinary Session, the Court had decided that it would henceforth rule on requests for reparations in the same judgment dealing with the merits of an application. The Parties were therefore requested to file their submissions on reparations. 13. The Applicants filed their submissions on reparations within the time stipulated The Respondent State did not respond to the said submissions. IV. PRAYERS OF THE PARTIES 14. The Applicants pray the Court to Critically evaluate the evidence adduced in the High Court especially on their identification in order to reach a just decision as the trial judge grossly erred in law and fact by convicting them based on unreliable evidence provided by contradicting witnesses. il Declare that the failure to convict the Applicants before sentencing them violates Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and that, therefore, they need to be given the benefit of the doubt. Declare that the Court of Appeal has failed to review its decision despite the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution of the Respondent State and the Rules of the Court of Appeal. tv Declare that the decision to convict them was based on manifest error on the face of the record. Declare that the fact that a single police officer conducted the preliminary investigation violated their right to a fair trial. VI Declare that the fact that a single judge conducted both the preliminary hearing and the trial violated their right to be heard by a competent tribunal. 5