103. The Court further notes that the Court of Appeal also relied on the testimonies of PW5, PW6, PW8 and PW9 in finding that Exhibit P9, containing the human body parts, belonged to the Applicant. 104. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation of a violation of his right to fair trial by reason of the domestic courts’ reliance on DNA evidence. iii. Acquittal of co-appellants 105. The Applicant submits that the Respondent State violated his right to a fair trial when the Court of Appeal acquitted the third and fourth appellants while convicting him. This, he submits, is the case because the facts of the case were very similar. * 106. The Respondent State refutes this allegation and submits that there was no unequal treatment in the acquittal of the other appellants. It points out that specific evidence had been presented against all the accused persons before domestic courts. It submits that the Applicant was convicted based on the strength of EP7 as well as the possession of a box having fingers and other tissues of a human being which were proved to belong to Henry Mwakajila. *** 107. The Court notes that in the Court of appeal, the evidence against each appellant was reconsidered. It was on the basis of this reconsideration that the conviction against the Applicant was upheld while the convictions of the other appellants were set aside. In its evaluation of the record, the Court has found no error in the manner in which the Court of Appeal evaluated the evidence considered by the High Court resulting in the eventual acquittal of some of the appellants. The Court also takes notice that each of the individuals charged with the murder of Henry Mwakajila needed to prove their own innocence given that specific evidence was brought against each 26