i. Alleged violation as regards identification and testimonies 78. The Applicant submits that in Case No. 95/2003, the District Magistrate Court did not organise an identification parade, contrary to the requirements of the law, in order to ensure respect for the principles of fair trial. 79. The Respondent State submits that in Case No. 95/2003, PW2 was the driver of the rented pick-up vehicle stolen by the Applicant, and that PW3 was the turn boy, that is, the driver’s assistant. The Respondent State submits that on 15 April 2003, the Applicant rented the pick-up vehicle from PW2 and PW3 and that, thereafter, these two (2) witnesses were driving in the vehicle with the Applicant from 8.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. It was around 10 a.m. that the Applicant and other persons armed with rifles and knives attacked both witnesses, tied them up, abandoned them on the road side and made away with the vehicle, The witnesses thus had ample time to see, recognise and identify the Applicant 80. The Respondent State avers that the District Magistrate Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Applicant's identification and the criteria applied thereon, are in line with the principles of justice and that there could be no error of identification in this case. 81. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss the allegation in its entirety, as baseless. tee 82. Having taken note of the above submissions of the parties, the Court considers that the key issues for determination are whether the Respondent State’s failure to conduct an identification parade and the domestic courts’ use of PW2's and PW3’s testimonies of visual identification to convict the Applicant are contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. 24