being arrested for and were put under restraint for four days incommunicado without access to a lawyer or anyone else. Further, while they were in custody, the Applicants claim to have been mistreated by police officers who notably insulted them. Only after having spent some time in police custody, a police officer informed them that they were charged with rape. According to the Applicants, the trial was unjustified for various reasons: the Court repeatedly dismissed requests to submit evidence, the results of the blood and urine test underwent by the Applicants were not presented as evidence in the trial Court, even while the alleged victims claimed to be infected with HIV/AIDS and Gonorrhea, the first Applicant’s request to test his impotence, and therefore his material impossibility to participate in the commission of the alleged crimes, was rejected. Further, they state that the Court used statements of the alleged victims as evidence, where they described from their memory the room where the rape took place, but the Court did not give consideration that these children and their parents visited the Applicants’ house before the hearing and studied the room several times. Further, the Applicants allege that the charges were fabricated in revenge by the former partner of the first Applicant, who was envious of his new engagement. According to the Applicants, the judgment was not based on strong evidence: the Court deliberately did not call material witnesses in the scene of the crime, the medical report tendered in Court by the prosecution contradicted the evidence adduced in Court by the alleged victims of rape and sodomy and the defense called 31 witnesses, but this evidence of the defense was not given enough consideration by the Court. Further, in the Appeal, six counts of rape and the charges of sodomy were dismissed, even though the remaining counts of rape were alleged to have been committed at the same material time and place, and the evidence brought by the prosecution was similar to the other charges. According to the Applicants, their right to a fair trial was violated: the charges lacked the dates on which the alleged offences were committed, therefore disabling the Applicants to prepare for their defense, and the Court relied on prosecution evidence which was uncorroborated 2 and had too many