was relied on facts not stated by witnesses, or, based on fraudulent documents presented as evidence by the prosecution. 57. The Court observes that the High Court, in convicting the Applicant, relied on exhibits such as pictures of the room in which the body of Linda Gasa was exhumed, call logs, picture of Linda Gasa’s dead body, video recording of the exhumation processes, the Applicant’s reply to his caution statement, immigration exit report and testimonies of 11 witness. 58. The Court is of the view that, in doing so, the High Court did not breach any procedural requirements as provided under the Respondent State’s criminal procedure and the evidence laws. As such, it cannot be said that the proceedings as conducted by the trial court was manifestly arbitrary or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 59. The Court therefore finds that there was no violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter as read together with Article 4(1) of the ACDEG, Article 8 of the UDHR, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Part A, Article 2(h) of the Fair Trial Guidelines regarding the Applicant’s conviction. C. Alleged violation of the right to challenge opposing evidence 60. The Applicant alleges that his right to fair trial was violated due to being denied the opportunity to challenge the opposing evidence presented by the prosecution. He avers that he was not given adequate opportunity to challenge the opposing evidence as the prosecution failed and/or neglected to bring to court key and material witnesses. It is the Applicant’s contention that such act was a violation of Article 7(1) of the Charter read together with Article 8 of the UDHR, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Part A, Article 2(e) of the Fair Trial Guidelines. 61. The Respondent State did not file any response. *** 15