Unanimously On jurisdiction i. Dismisses the objection to its material jurisdiction; ii. Declares that it has jurisdiction. On admissibility iii. Dismisses the objection to the admissibility of the Application; iv. Declares that the Application is admissible. On merits v. Finds that the Respondent did not violate the Applicants’ fair trial rights guaranteed under Article 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Charter by allegedly convicting and sentencing them based on unreliable evidence; vi. Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) by allegedly not properly considering their defence of alibi; vii. Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Second Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time in violation of Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter by not hearing his application for review timeously; viii. Finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(2) of the Charter and that the Applicants were not convicted and sentenced on the basis of unclear law; ix. Finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Second Applicant’s right to non-discrimination enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter; x. Finds that the Respondent State did violate the Applicants’ right to defence under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter as read together with Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 39