00031 1 by the Applicants' assertions that the prosecution witnesses had admitted to the former's witnesses that they erred in identifying the real culprits and that they apologised to the Applicants' relatives for the same. 8. Despite the fact that the Respondent State's responsibility is not engaged, we also think that the Court should have given some importance to the said letter and taken judicial notice of its contents to urge or at least, encourage the Respondent State to take necessary measures to clear the shadow of doubt cast on the Applicants' conviction. We understand that the majority's hesitance to do so stems from the lack of an explicit normative basis that would enable the Court to make such order in circumstances where it has not found the Respondent State in breach of its international obligations in the Charter or o other human rights treaties to which is it is a party. L However, it is also not unusual for international courts to make remarks, including in the form of obiter dictum when the need arises and we are of the view that the majority could have done the same in the instant Application. 10.|n view of the above, we regret that the court failed to nudge or urge the Respondent State to take judicial or other administrative measures to decisively establish the truth of the preliminary findings of the CHRGG and to clear any doubt about the culpability of the Applicants. 11.As the traditional legal adage goes'lt is far befferthat ten guilty men go free o than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted'. Even after conviction, the right to be heard requires fhe possibility of review of such conviction when, for example, there is new evidence, which, as rs fhe case in the instant Application, casts doubt on the Applicants' conviction Every government owes a duty of care to its citizens and since the CHRGG is a government agency it should not be difficult for the authorities to implement whatever final findings have been reached relevant to the culpability of the Applicants. 3