75. According to a report by a psychologist, which was provided by the Applicant together with his amended Application, the Applicant was suffering from an acute stress reaction after committing the offence. On this basis, the Applicant avers that he was in a vulnerable situation when he was interrogated, hence he was not in a condition to waive his right to remain silent. He states that the conditions in which his confession was extracted, renders it involuntary and violate his fair trial rights. 76. The Applicant also states that during the trial within the trial, when the High Court adjudicated whether to admit his confession, it failed to make inquiry about his physical injuries, mental state, and any medical treatment he had received. In addition, the Applicant submits that the High Court did not inquire how his physical injuries and mental state contributed to his inability to understand his right to remain silent. Furthermore, he says that the High Court stated that even if the Applicant’s confession was obtained through tortured before, this did not affect his confession. The Applicant states that by relying on his involuntary confession to convict and sentence him to death, the Respondent violated Articles 7 and 14 of the ICCPR and Articles 5 and 7 of the African Charter. 77. He also asserts that the absence of direct witnesses to the killings resulted in the High Court relying on unreliable hearsay evidence to convict him. In particular, the Applicant states that based on hearsay evidence, he is alleged to have quarrelled with his wife the day before he committed the offence. 78. In addition, he states that to bolster his motivation for killing his wife, the prosecution relied on further hearsay evidence of another quarrel. Furthermore, he submits that the hearsay evidence regarding the observations and opinion of Haile Cherehani (prosecution witness) further bolstered the prosecution’s theory that he committed the offence. * 20