00033 such investigation reveal that the victim was later paid compensation by the true burglars under the aegis of the local authority. This, according to the Applicants, was not included in the record of the court proceedings as the said investigation was carried out after all domestic court proceedings were concluded. The Applicants also add that the witnesses admitted to the Applicants' relatives that they made an error in identifying the true culprits of the crime and even offered an apology to the Applicants' relatives. 10. The Applicants accordingly submit that, given the circumstances of their case, the Court of Appeal should have allowed their petition for review by complying with Article 107 (A) (2) (c) and (e) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. They a contend that the Court's refusal to allow their request for review violated the Constitution and their conviction on the basis of a mistaken identity and without the Prosecution having proven the charges laid against them beyond reasonable doubt violated Article 3 (1) and (2) and Article 2 of the Charter. 11.The Applicants further allege that they "were isolated on the procedure and the decision of the [domestic] courts, thus violating their fundamental rights which need to be served pursuant to Article 27 (1) of the Protocol and Rule 34 (5) of the Rules of the Court in order to rectify the violation". III. t SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 12.The Application was filed on 2 October 2015 and was served on the Respondent State on 4 December 2015 in accordance with Rule 35 and Rule 37 of the Rules. 13. On the same date, pursuant to Rules 35 and 53 of the Rules, the Registry also transmitted the Application to all State Parties to the Protocol, the African Union Commission and the Executive Council of the African Union, through Chairperson of the African Union Commission. b Y -r*' the I