80. In relation to the third criterion on whether due process was followed in the proceedings leading to the pronouncement of the death sentence, the Court notes that according to the Applicant, he was not accorded due process because he was presumed guilty before the trial, he was represented by Counsel who also represented his co-accused whose testimony implicated him in the murder and, further, that his circumstances were not taken into account when imposing the death sentence on him. 81. The Respondent State on its part avers that all due process was accorded the Applicant, he was represented at all levels, a voire dire was held to consider the extra-judicial statement made by the Applicants’ co-accused, he was tried by an impartial court and had the opportunity to present his case and cross examine witnesses. 82. The Court notes that before the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Applicant was granted free legal representation; he was provided a different lawyer from that of the co-accused to address the concern raised by the lawyer regarding a possible conflict of interest in representing both the accused brothers. The Applicant was therefore able to present his case, cross examine the witnesses who testified and to file an appeal. As such, the Court observes that the processes in domestic courts and the assessment of the evidence do not reveal any miscarriage of justice or manifest error that would amount to a breach of due process. 83. Having said that, the Court notes that it has previously held in the matter of Rajabu, that the death penalty as imposed by the courts of the Respondent State in instances of murder, such as is the case in the present Application, does not abide by due process as it does not allow the judicial officer discretion to consider alternative forms of punishment.34 34 Rajabu and Others v. Tanzania, supra, § 110. 23