00136 judgment was rendered on 24 May 2017, which is one year after the matter was adjourned. 71. conversely, the court notes that the application for review could not have been heard without a copy thereof being filed by the Applicants. From the above determination, they actually did so upon or after filing the present Application, which caused a delay of over two (2) years out of the four (4) years of the review process. 72.lnthe circumstances, this court is of the opinion that, upon submission of the required document, it actually took the Court of Appeal about two (2) years to complete the review process. such time cannot be said to be unreasonable in a case involving murder punishable by death, where the Court of Appeal required sufficient time for an ultimate ruling, and bearing in mind scheduling constraints in the domestic judicial system. 73. As a consequence of the foregoing, the court finds that the Respondent state has not violated Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. ii. The right to be heard 74.The Applicants allege that there were grave variances between the testimony of two of the prosecution witnesses, which are pW1 and pW2. ln support of that contention, they stress the fact that one of the witnesses testified that he "[sic] managed to get out of the house through a window (the only one without mash wire) and he stepped out a pace closer to the bandits next to the armed bandit and flashed on a torch to identify them." The Applicants submits that "[sic] this would have been an exceptional act of brevity, had it happened,,. The Applicants do not however state how the evidence by the two witnesses were at variance. 75. The Applicants also aver that the manner in which the prellminary investigations were conducted allowed the police officer in charge to make up the case. They submit in that respect that the said police officer handled the whole process 2t ,/ )( ,4" r