B. Alleged violation of the right to life 60. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his right to life as enshrined in Article 4 of the Charter. In support of his contention, the Applicant alleges that his right was violated because the national courts convicted him on the basis of suspicions thus resulting in erroneous decisions by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. To substantiate the preceding, the Applicant submits that Henry Mwakajila was not proven to have died and may as well have simply travelled outside of the Respondent State’s borders. * 61. The Respondent State, in response, argues that the elements for the offence of murder were established beyond reasonable doubt before the Applicant was convicted. It thus refutes the Applicant’s submission that he was convicted on the basis of suspicions. It also points out that witnesses were called during the Applicant’s trial to testify to the fact that since his disappearance, Henry Mwakajila had never been seen alive again. *** 62. Article 4 of the Charter provides that “[h]uman beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.” 63. In the instant Application, the Court observes that the Applicant’s grievance is that his right to life was violated due the conviction and sentence that were, allegedly, founded on suspicions. A key plank in the Applicant’s argument is that Henry Mwakajila was not proven to have died and may very well have simply travelled outside the Respondent State’s borders. 64. The record reveals that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal addressed their minds to the absence of direct evidence in relation to the death of Henry Mwakajila. In the judgment of the High Court, for example, 16