75. In the instant case, the record shows that the High Court convicted the Applicants, partly, on the basis of evidence of visual identification based on the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses, who were victims of the crimes. The record confirms that these witnesses knew the Applicants prior to the commission of the crime as the Applicants were neighbours who worked in the victims’/witnesses’ house. 76. The record demonstrates that the High Court analysed the circumstances under which the prosecution witnesses claimed to have identified the Applicants, including the lighting at the crime scene and the length of time the witnesses had the Applicants under observation. It was following this assessment that the High Court decided to ignore the testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses while admitting the testimony of others. The judgment of the High Court also demonstrates that the trial judge was fully aware of the importance of certitude in identification evidence before the court could rely on the same. The High Court’s findings were, subsequently, fully endorsed by the Court of Appeal. 77. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the procedures adopted by domestic courts in assessing the identification evidence did not violate Article 7(1) of the Charter, specifically or any international human rights standards, generally. 78. The Court, therefore, dismisses the allegation that the domestic courts erroneously relied upon evidence of visual identification in convicting the Applicants. iii. Failure by the prosecution to prove the case against the Applicants 79. The Applicants allege that their rights were violated because the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. * 21