84. The Court also notes from the record that the domestic courts thoroughly
analysed the evidence tendered before them and concluded that the
Applicants were properly identified as being the actual perpetrators of the
crimes of which they were subsequently convicted. The trial court as well as
appellate court ascertained that all circumstances of possible mistakes were
ruled out and the identity of the suspects was established with certainty.
85. Notably, the domestic courts addressed the Applicants’ claim that the crime
was committed at night and that they were not properly identified and their
arrest and conviction were based on mistaken identity. The courts took into
account the specific circumstances of the crimes including the fact that the
incident took fairly a long period of time; the Applicants were previously
known to the victims prior to the incident; that the Applicants were
unmasked during the incident; that the victims used a lamp and torch light
to see the Applicants in close proximity; and that the victims named the
Applicants to other villagers immediately after the incident.
86. The Court is of the view that the manner in which the domestic courts
evaluated the evidence does not reveal any manifest error or a miscarriage
of justice to the Applicants.
87. As regards the Applicants’ submissions that the witnesses were members
of the same family and thus, their testimony should not be deemed credible,
the Court notes from the record that this issue was raised and properly dealt
with by the Court of Appeal. The Court observes that the fact that evidence
is obtained from relatives alone does not compromise the credibility of the
evidence, as long as the testimony tendered by witnesses offers a
consistent account of the crimes committed and the identity of the
perpetrators.
88. Furthermore, the Applicants’ allegation that the case was not properly
investigated and that the evidence should have been corroborated by
testimonies of the arresting officer and local leaders lacks merit. It is up to
the domestic authorities to decide on whether the evidence proffered by the
23