VII. MERITS 56. The Applicants allege, as detailed in paragraph six (6) of this Judgment, that the Respondent State violated their rights to non-discrimination; equality before the law and equal protection; life; dignity; and a fair trial protected under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 respectively. The Court will now consider each of the Applicants’ allegations. A. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 57. In relation to the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the Applicants contend that the Respondent State violated their rights due to failure to consider their evidence and to provide reasons for the conclusions reached by the domestic courts; the domestic court’s reliance on faulty identification evidence and the prosecution’s failure to prove the case against the Applicants beyond reasonable doubt. The Court will individually address each of the alleged violations of the Applicants’ right to a fair trial. i. Alleged failure to consider exculpatory evidence 58. The Applicants argue that the High Court and the Court of Appeal ignored exulpatory evidence thereby rendering their trial unfair. They further aver that their right to a fair trial was violated by Respondent State insofar as the trial court failed to furnish them with reasons for disregarding and not considering their defence. * 59. The Respondent State refutes the Applicants’ allegations and claims that the trial court, after the prosecution had presented its evidence, issued a ruling in accordance with its CPA, in which it held that there was enough evidence presented, which required the accused persons to defend themselves. After this, all the accused persons (including the Applicants) proceeded to present their case by giving testimony. The Respondent States submits, therefore, that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal 16