It was following from this that the confession statement and the other documentary evidence was admitted. 100. The Court also notes that the question of the admissibility of the Applicant’s confession statement was addressed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal noted that the objection should have, ordinarily, been brought up before the High Court. Nevertheless, it went ahead and examined the validity and admissibility of the confession statement and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Applicant was convicted not only based on the confession statement but also due to the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses who had been found to be credible. 101. In this regard, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the Applicant had first confessed to PW1 in confidence and also confessed later before a large gathering in the presence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5. The Court of Appeal further noted that the statements by the witnesses were very similar in content to the confession statement by the Applicant. It thus concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict the Applicant. 102. In its assessment, the Court does not see any manifest error or anomaly in the domestic courts’ assessment of the evidence relied upon to convict the Applicant such as to warrant its intervention. 103. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter. D. Alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter 104. The Applicant alleges that by convicting him based on unlawfully obtained evidence and torturing him, the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the Charter. * 24