no longer intended to call his witnesses either because he did not actually want them to appear on his behalf or because he did not have the means to obtain their attendance […]. 88. It is of significant relevance that in the Diocles William case, the Applicant called witnesses on three (3) occasions without success and in the end, he gave up.38 Conversely, in the present Application, the Applicant through his counsel informed the trial court, twice, that he would not be calling witnesses. Further, in the Diocles William matter, this Court held that the judicial authorities of the Respondent State should be proactive in seeking witnesses suo motu in cases where the Applicant is without legal aid which is not the case in the present matter as the Applicant was represented. As such, the facts in the matter of Diocles William can be distinguished from those arising in the present matter as the Applicant was sufficiently notified of this right and chose not to call any witnesses. 89. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation and finds that the Respondent did not violate Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter regarding the right to defence in respect of seeking additional defence witnesses. iii. Alleged violation of the right to be presumed innocent 90. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated the presumption of innocence due to the reliance on insufficiently strong or credible evidence. He alleges that his conviction is based on evidence that is neither strong nor credible resulting in a conviction that lacked the requisite degree or any degree of certitude. He avers that the prosecuting authorities of the Respondent State failed to corroborate or properly evaluate the weak and contradictory eyewitness evidence used to identify him as the assailant. He submits that the only evidence against him came from uncorroborated eyewitness and two (2) witnesses to a dying declaration of the deceased. 38 Ibid. 25