ii. Domestic courts’ reliance on DNA evidence 99. The Applicant contends that the Respondent State violated his rights by relying on DNA evidence which he alleges was faulty.34 He submits that as a result the prosecution failed to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. * 100. The Respondent State refutes this allegation and submits that the Applicant was properly tried and convicted. It points out that it was not disputed that the Applicant was found in possession of a box containing human bones and tissue which were later proved to belong to Henry Mwakajila. *** 101. The Court takes judicial notice of section 240 of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act, which lays down the procedure for admitting medical reports in criminal trials.35 The Court notes, from the record, that the medical officer who signed the DNA certificate was called as a witness, before the High Court, and examined by both the prosecution and defence in relation to the results of her DNA analysis. 102. The Applicant, however, has not particularised which part of the DNA testing process fell afoul of his right to a fair trial. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to uphold the Applicant’s contention that the domestic courts improperly relied on the DNA evidence to convict him. 34 Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is the molecule that carries genetic information for the development and functioning of an organism. 35 Section 240(3) – “Where a report referred to in this section is received in evidence the Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, if so requested by the accused person or his advocate, summon and examine or make available for cross-examination the person who made the report; and the Court shall inform the accused person of his right to require the person who made the report to be summoned in accordance with the provisions of this subsection”. 25