testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and found that there was cogent evidence to convict the Applicant. Noteworthy, circumstances considered by the trial court included the fact that the acts of killing of the deceased persons were carried out at two different times within the same day; and the Applicant on each occasion, instructed his accomplies to conceal the evidence. On the basis of these considerations the High Court, taking into account the actus reus and mens rea of the Applicant, concluded that it is evident that he knew what he was doing when committing the crimes. 74. The Court further observes that the Court of Appeal upheld the reasoning and findings of the High Court, and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. It is against these considerations that the domestic courts dismissed the Applicant’s defence of insanity. 75. This Court does not ignore the fact that other factors were also adduced by the Applicant which he claims should have been taken into account by domestic courts. In respect to the said issues, the Court notes that the trial court and Court of Appeal examined the submissions and evidence before them. Having done so, both courts arrived at the conclusion that the evidence considered was enough and substantial to make the conviction stand even when the impugned medical report was set aside. 76. In light of the above, this Court considers that, in convicting the Applicant, the domestic courts not only exercised the judicial discretion to consider the specific circumstances and situation of the Applicant; but also undertook a proper assessment of the said circumstances mainly the Applicant’s defence of insanity. 77. Having said that, this Court recalls that the determinative factor in assessing fairness regarding arbitrary deprivation of life under Article 4 of the Charter, is not only whether the trial court was left with the discretion to receive and consider submissions related to the specific situation of the Applicant and circumstances of the offence. The key element in this regard is rather whether the judicial officer was able to exercise discretion in taking into 20