181. In the circumstances, it is difficult to say that all possibilities of error respect to the identity of the perpetrator of the crime have witness statements were either contradictory or, to inconsistencies, and are far from constituting a watertight especially with been eliminated, since the say the least, riddled with testimony. 182. The Court then notes that even if he had ultimately asked for the conviction of the Applicant, the Senior State Attorney admitted such possibility of error before the Court of Appeal, as reported by the Judgment of the aforesaid Court dated 5 October 2004 on the same case. “He [the Senior State Attorney} did not support the conviction on the ground that the identification of the appellant was solely based on the evidence of the single witness, PW 1, under unfavourable conditions. The circumstances were such that, in his view, the possibility of mistaken identity could not be ruled out” [fifth sheet]. 183. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the testimony in question constituted unassailable evidence. 184. As regards the identification of the Applicant, in particular, the Court notes that in the special circumstances in which the robbery occurred in the instant case, it would have been safer for the competent authorities to also carry out an identification parade. 185. For all these reasons, the Court holds that the conviction of the Applicant based on the testimony of a single individual and riddled with inconsistencies, did not meet the requirements of a fair hearing under Article 7 of the Charter. . A SS { Qs