0003{0 iii) The third prosecution witness (PW 3), who was a crime investigation officer "confirmed that PW 1 made two statements, the first one on the day of the incident without naming any suspects [and the other day, mentioning the names of the Applicantsl" despite the fact that PW 1 denied making two statements on different days. iv) The fourth Prosecution Witness (PW 4) was not at the scene of the incident and named them to the police as was informed by the victim (PW 1) and only a month after the incident. v) a The statements of the fifth Prosecution Witness (PW 5), the wife of PW l, were contradictory. Even if she claimed to have identified them during the incident, it was not possible for her to identify them if, as she confirmed, she hid herself far outside of the house. She also forgot the date when she reported to the police and that her statement indicating that on the day of the incident her husband did not report to the police conflicts with the testimony given by PW 3. vi) The sixth Prosecution Witness (PW 6), who was a cell leader working under PW 1 claimed that he saw the Applicants at the scene of the crime but he did not justify why he did not raise the alarm during the incident nor did he make a follow up to effect their arrest. o vii) The intimate relationship that existed among the Prosecution Witnesses: PW l, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 6, and in view of their contradictory statements, the accusation made against the Applicants was rather a fabrication by PW 9. The Applicants further state that their conviction on the basis of a mistaken identity was substantiated by the "unfolding truth" that emerged from the investigation of the Tanzanian Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRGG). The Applicants allege that the observations made by the Commission following 5 w $