77. The Respondent State disputes the Applicants’ allegations and prays the Court to put them to strict proof. It contends that its domestic courts convicted and sentenced the Applicants after carefully weighing the evidence adduced by the Prosecution and making a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the Applicants were the perpetrators. 78. The Respondent State specifically contests the Applicants’ claim that their conviction was based solely on visual identification at the scene of the crime, asserting that the prosecution witnesses had prior knowledge of the Applicants before the incident. Additionally, it challenges the Applicants’ assertion that the evidence was not reliable, arguing that the use of witnesses who were members of the same family neither constitutes a violation of the Applicants’ rights nor compromises the credibility of the witnesses. The Respondent State further argues that there is no legal prohibition on the prosecution’s use of evidence from family members. 79. The Respondent State further contests the Applicants’ assertion that the case was poorly investigated and that certain individuals, such as the investigator, arresting officer, and local leaders, did not testify. It argues that the right to call witnesses in support of the prosecution is the prerogative of the Prosecutor, and that it is not mandatory for all individuals involved in the case to testify. The Respondent State maintains that the investigation was conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to warrant the Applicants’ conviction. It stresses that both the trial Court and appellate Courts duly analysed the evidence and came to a just conclusion that the Applicants committed the offence. *** 80. The Court notes that Article 7(1) of the Charter guarantees the fundamental principles of a right to fair trial by prescribing that, inter alia, every individual has the right to have his cause heard and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal. The respect for the right to a fair trial “requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, 21