3/ The allegation concerning the defense of Alibi i) Applicants' Submission 90. The Applicants argue that their right to respect for the presumption of innocence under Article 7 (1) (b) of the Charter (sic) was violated because both the Court of Appeal and the High Court arbitrarily rejected their defense of alibi. 17 91. The Applicants complain that they submitted evidence attesting that they had never been to Tanzania before their extradition and they were in Kenya on the day and at the time the crime allegedly was committed. The Applicants assert that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal also acknowledged, in their respective judgments, that the passports of the Applicants show nothing suggesting their travel to Tanzania on the day of the crime. The Applicants allege that, this notwithstanding and even though no corroborating evidence was adduced, both Courts disregarded their defense of alibi on a wrong assumption that the Applicants could have used illegal routes ("panya routes") (to enter Tanzania and this would not have been reflected on their passports. ii) Respondent's Submission 92. The Respondent has not made any submissions on this allegation. iii) The Court's Assessment 93. The Court notes that an alibi is an important instrument of evidence for one's defense. The defense of alibi is implicit in the right of a fair trial and should be thoroughly examined and possibly set aside, prior to a guilty verdict. 18 In its judgment in Mohamed Abubakari v Tanzania, this Court observed that: "Where an alibi is established with certitude, it can be decisive on the determination of the guilt of the accused. This issue was all the more crucial especially as, in the instant case, the indictment of the Applicant relied on the statements of a single witness, and that no identification parade was conducted."19 17 Rejoinder p. 9 18 Abubakari judgment, para. 192 19 Ibid, para. 191 25