79. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal, having considered arguments concerning the allegation that the Applicant was coerced to make a statement, came to the conclusion that the Applicant was not coerced to confess and that the Applicant understood his right to remain silent. The Respondent State further contends that the statement made by the Applicant was corroborated by prosecution witnesses. 80. With regard to the allegation that prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent facts such that their evidence is not credible, the Respondent State avers that the witnesses were credible. It contends further that the Applicant never raised this matter before the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State also submits that the Applicant does not plead, before this Court, exactly which statements made by the prosecution witnesses that are inconsistent and the evidence from the prosecution witnesses focused on different matters (facts), so it was not possible for the facts they testified on to be inconsistent. 81. With respect to the allegation that the confession statement admitted in Court was admitted despite the magistrate not following proper legal procedure, the Respondent State contends that that the magistrate followed proper legal procedure when he took down the Applicant’s statement/confession. It elaborates that the Magistrate inquired whether the Applicant suffered from any assault/harm and the magistrate recorded that the Applicant only told him about the injury concerning his genitals but nothing of being assaulted. 82. Furthermore, the Respondent State also avers that the Magistrate inquired whether the Applicant understood his rights when he provided the statement. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal analysed the legal procedure followed by the magistrate and concluded it was in compliance with the law. It also submits that the Applicant was accorded counsel from the pretrial stage throughout his trial. *** 21