73. The Court notes, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Judgment, that the Applicants were co-accused in the domestic proceedings and the circumstances of their conviction were identical. The Court will therefore simultaneously consider the allegations raised by both Applicants as well as the separate allegations made by each Applicant in a sequential and systemic manner. A. Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 74. The Applicants make two allegations relating to their right to a fair trial: first, that their conviction and sentence were based on unreliable evidence, and second, that the domestic Courts failed to properly consider their defence of alibi. The Court will proceed to consider each of these two allegations. i. Allegation that the conviction and sentence were based on unreliable evidence 75. The Applicants assert that the Respondent State violated their rights to a fair trial by convicting and sentencing them on the basis of unreliable evidence. They maintain that the domestic courts relied on visual identification of witnesses who claimed to have identified them as the main perpetrators of the crime. 76. According to the Applicants, this evidence was short of meeting the standards of proper evidence for criminal proceedings. They claim that first, the visual identification was allegedly made at around 9 p.m. when it was dark with little or no lighting and that no description of the culprits was ever disclosed; second, the witnesses were members of the same family; thirdly, the offence was poorly investigated and that neither the investigator nor the arresting police officer testified before the Court. Furthermore, the First Applicant adds that the local leaders of the alleged area where the crimes were committed did not testify in support of the prosecution. 20