109. The record also confirms that the Court of Appeal considered the legal propriety of admitting the Applicants’ caution statements, as manifested in the discussion on pages 10 to 12 of its judgment. In its assessment, the Court of Appeal confirmed that under section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act any evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act or any law can be challenged but that a trial court has absolute discretion to admit or exclude such evidence. Given the latitude offered by section 169, to admit or not admit evidence, the Court of Appeal held that its role was to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in dealing with such evidence. 110. In the Court’s assessment, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, demonstrated sufficient awareness of the possible dangers of simplistically admitting the Applicants’ caution statements but in the exercise of discretion vested in them by law decided to admit the statements. The Court finds, therefore, that the record does not establish that the domestic courts abused their discretion in admitting the statements. 111. Given the above, the Court finds that the Applicants’ have failed to prove their allegations and, accordingly, dismisses their claim that their right to fair trial was violated by reason of the admission of their caution statements into evidence. F. Alleged violation of the freedom of expression 112. Apart from indicating that their right to freedom of expression was violated, the Applicants did not make any submissions outlining how their rights were violated. * 113. The Respondent State submits that “this allegation is baseless as there is no explanation as to how the Applicants’ right to receive information to express and disseminate their opinions within the law has been violated.” It further submits that “the Applicants have not stated what information they 30