67. Equally, although the Applicants allege that no reasons were given by the domestic courts for disregarding their defences, the record reveals that the Applicants principally sought to rely on the defence of alibi. The record also confirms that the High Court fully considered the Applicants’ alibis and dismissed them after finding them unplausible. It is also notable that the High Court’s findings were upheld by the Court of Appeal in their entirety. The Court finds that, in its assessment of the Applicants’ alibis, the trial court demonstrated an awareness of the required burden and standard of proof for establishing an alibi. The trial court also provided reasons for disregarding the alibis. 68. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate how the domestic courts disregarded their evidence or failed to provide reasons for disregarding their defences before convicting them. 69. In light of all the above, the Court thus dismisses the Applicants’ allegation of a violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter. ii. Alleged violation due to the admission of evidence relating to identification 70. The Applicants submit that the visual identification relied upon by the domestic courts to convict them was erroneous. They aver that the victims who testified as witnesses could not properly identify them as the alleged crime and attack took place at night and, therefore, the conditions for identification were not conducive. * 71. The Respondent State argues that the trial court was aware of the dangers of relying on the prosecution’s identification evidence and properly attuned itself to these dangers, all the more so as the crime took place at night. It submits that the domestic courts treatment of the identification evidence was in line with the settled legal position in its jurisdiction. Specifically, the Respondent State submits that that the trial court took into account the 19