victims’ post-mortem reports that were tendered at the High Court. There were also the uncontested facts, including the fact that the Applicant knew that his arrest was in connection with the murder of the two (2) victims, and that the Applicant and his co-accused’s escape from the crime scene connoted an intention to kill. 79. The Court of Appeal also assessed whether the Applicant’s confession was made voluntarily. On the claim of torture especially, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the Applicant did not inform the justice of peace that he was tortured while in police custody, and neither did the justice of peace find any bruises on his body during the physical examination. The Court of Appeal concluded that the statement was not procured through torture and the same was truthful as corroborated by the justice of peace’s testimony before the High Court. 80. The Court notes further that the Court of Appeal referred to its jurisprudence, which dictates that reliance on a confession where there is no corroboration is subject to strict requirements. These are, ascertaining whether the statement was voluntarily made, whether it was truthfully made and whether corroboration was unavailable.28 The Court of Appeal applied these criteria to the facts of the case involving the Applicant and satisfied itself that the Applicant was properly convicted on the basis of a confession he made voluntarily. 81. The Court, therefore, holds that there is nothing on record to show that the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State denied the Applicant the opportunity to challenge his conviction and sentence. 82. Therefore, regarding the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the Court finds that domestic courts’ treatment of the extrajudicial statement and claim of torture do not reveal non-compliance with the standards set out in the Charter. Tuwamoi v. Uganda [1967] EA 84 at page 91. “Point of law is this: this court is entitled to convict an accused on a retracted/repudiated confession if it satisfied after taking into account material points of the case that what has been stated in the statement is nothing but the truth.” 28 22