where the Judge ordered a trial within a trial to determine whether or not the extra-judicial statement was obtained voluntarily. 80. The Respondent State notes that on 21 June 2010, the trial court gave its ruling guided by three principles, namely, the burden of proof in criminal cases, the basis of admission of a confession and whether there is evidence of torture. It notes that after careful consideration, the trial court overruled the objection. It is also the Respondent State’s submission that the trial court informed each party that they had the right to give evidence and call witnesses. It also notes that the Court of Appeal, as an appellate court, considered the extra-judicial statement and found that it was properly before the court and that the Applicant did not disassociate himself from the murder. It is, therefore, the Respondent State’s submission that the extrajudicial statements were properly admitted in court as exhibits and considered by the trial court and the appellate court and that the Applicant was convicted based on well-established principles of law and credible evidence. 81. On the issue of criminal intent, the Respondent State further refers to page 18 of the trial proceedings record to the effect that the trial court considered the unlawful act which was stealing, rather than killing. However, it also submits that the trial court held that the accused had common intention to steal but, in the course, committed the offence of murder. 82. On the issue of corroboration, the Respondent State also refers to the trial court’s instructions to the assessors, at pages 7 and 8, where the judge instructed the assessors to consider whether the confession was corroborated, that a conviction of a person should not be based solely on a confession of a co-accused, and that it must be supported by some other independent evidence. The Respondent State further submits that the trial court properly warned itself of the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence, and rightfully so. It refers to court’s statement according to which it was convinced that there was evidence to corroborate the statement. 19