manner in which the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal were conducted. The Court will, below, address each of the allegations made by the Applicant. i. Conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence 85. The Applicant alleges that his conviction was not based on sufficient evidence. In support of his allegation, he argues that the prosecution failed to prove that someone had been killed. He submits, therefore, that the person alleged to have been killed, Henry Mwakajila, “was not killed or was not proved to be dead.” 86. The Applicant further alleges that his conviction was founded on the statement admitted by the High Court as Exhibit EP7 which was made by a person who was deceased by the time of trial and was, therefore, never called to testify. 87. The Applicant also submits that the Respondent State did not prove that the alleged victim of his actions was dead. He avers that the Respondent State relied on bone tissue and fingers, which could have been retrieved from a different human being, to convict him of murder. * 88. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant was found with a box having parts of a human being, which were later DNA tested and found to tally with the DNA extracts from the shirt of Henry Mwakajila, the victim. It also submits that the DNA analysis showed a match as between the body parts found with the Applicant and the blood of Bahati Seme Mwakajila – who is Henry Mwakajila’s sister and who was also called as prosecution witness no. 3 during the High Court proceedings. 89. As to Exhibit EP7, the Respondent State submits that section 34B of its Evidence Act allows the admission of such statements. It further submits 22