94. As to the domestic courts reliance on Exhibit EP7, the Court notes, from the record, that the Court of Appeal found that “it was unsafe to found conviction to the appellants basing on uncorroborated evidence of Kefasi Lyambulilo Mwakalinga.” Nevertheless, it was noted that Exhibit EP7 was amply corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Following from this, the Court of Appeal found that the only reasonable inference was that the Applicant was involved in the killing of Henry Mwakajila. 95. The Court also notes, from the record, that the domestic courts dealt with the issue of the death of the victim which had become a critical issue given that the victim’s body had not been found. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal acknowledged that this was a case in which the presumption of death applied. As was pointed out by the Court of Appeal, given the timing of the disappearance of the victim and the first and second appellants being found in possession of the victim’s large intestines and bone tissue and fingernails, the burden fell on them to explain how they came to be in possession of the victim’s body parts. The Applicant, however, failed to rebut the presumption. 96. The Court finds, therefore, that there was nothing wrong with the manner in which the presumption of death was applied in the Applicant’s trial. It concludes, therefore, that the Applicant’s right to a fair trial was not violated by reason of application of the presumption of death. 97. In its assessment of the analysis of the evidence by the domestic courts, this Court has found nothing to fault both the High Court and the Court of Appeal’s approach. It thus finds that the allegation that the Applicant was convicted on the basis of insufficient evidence to be unfounded. 98. This Court, therefore, dismisses the allegation that the domestic courts erroneously convicted the Applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence. 24