80. The Respondent State avers that the standard of proof in criminal cases is one beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which happened before the trial court. It further submits that this is why the decision of the trial court was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. *** 81. The Court notes that the Applicants make a general statement to the effect that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. The Applicants, however, do not demonstrate how the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, the record demonstrates that the High Court was fully aware that the Applicants bore no burden to prove their innocence. It is clear, therefore, that the High Court applied the correct standard and burden of proof in convicting the Applicants. 82. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ allegations and holds that the Respondent State did not violate their rights under Article 7(1) of the Charter. iv. Allegations relating to admission of post-mortem report into evidence 83. The Applicants allege that their rights were violated insofar as the postmortem report which was relied on to convict them was improperly admitted into evidence, in contravention of section 240(3) of the Respondent State’s CPA. * 84. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants’ argument on this point is misconceived and could be attributed to “sheer legal ignorance.” It also points out that during the preliminary hearing, two (2) exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection by the Applicants or their counsel. These were the sketch plan of the crime scene and the post-mortem report. The 22