under the alleged violation of the right to dignity, above. The Court will now consider the three (3) allegations jointly, before proceeding to examine the allegation of non-consideration of the defence of an alibi. i. Allegation that the case was not considered beyond a reasonable doubt 79. The Applicant avers that the evidence submitted by the Respondent State during his trial was based on a caution statement that was recorded under duress since he was forced to record it while receiving treatment at the hospital after having been attacked by a mob. 80. The Applicant submits that he was convicted not only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and a repudiated caution statement but also because he was suspected of being a habitual thief. He alleges that if the courts “had investigated properly”, they would have established facts to illustrate that the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and would not have convicted him of such a serious offence like murder that carries the death penalty. * 81. In relation to the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the Respondent State avers that the caution statement was recorded voluntarily, is true and is supported by the evidence provided by the arresting police officer, PW4, D 7759 D/CPL Ahmed, who reported that “It was the same date i.e., 29.01.2010 when we were at the hospital, he told me how the whole incident started and what happened. I realised that what he was telling me was important so I decided to record his statement so that it helps in the future. I told him that I wanted to record his statement. He said that he was willing.”31 82. The Respondent State submits that the confession by the Applicant satisfied the requirement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Cap 6 R.E. 2002], 31 See at page 11 of the judgment of the High Court/ page 96 of the Court of Appeal Record (Attached to the Application) 23