67. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ allegation that the Respondent State violated Article 3 of the Charter in respect of the manner in which the Court of Appeal handled the issues of burden of proof and evidence. B. Allegation that the decision to substitute the sentences could not be appealed 68. The Applicants allege that the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss their appeal, set aside the sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment and substitute it with life imprisonment left them aggrieved and without any opportunity to appeal. * 69. The Respondent State refutes this allegation and contends that the Court of Appeal merely addressed the anomaly in the sentencing of the accused and handed out the appropriate sentence as provided by law for the offence of gang rape which attracts life imprisonment as stipulated under Section 131A(2) of the Penal Code. 70. The Respondent State further argues that although the Court of Appeal is the highest court of the land, the Applicants still had the opportunity to file an application for review of its decision. *** 71. The Court notes that while the issue raised by the Applicants is in relation to the lack of a remedy against the substitution of the sentences, their allegation is that the manner in which this issue was examined led to a violation of their rights to equality before the law and an equal protection of the law. 72. The Court observes that while the alleged violation is that of the right to equal protection of the law, preliminary clarifications are required in respect 18