Respondent State submits that the post-mortem report was admitted merely to confirm the death of the deceased and that the Applicants’ conviction was premised on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Accordingly, it prays the Court to dismiss the Applicants’ allegations. *** 85. The Court takes judicial notice of section 240(3) of the Respondent State’s CPA, which lays down the procedure for admitting medical reports in criminal trials.32 The Court notes from the record that the Applicants’, who were represented by counsel, never requested the Court to summon and examine the author of the post-mortem report. Further, it emerges from the Application that the Applicants do not elaborate how the admission of the post-mortem report led to a violation of their right to a fair trial. Additionally, the Court notes, again from the record, that the post-mortem report was not cited as a basis for the Applicants’ conviction by the High Court. 86. The Court thus finds the Applicants’ allegations relating to the admission of the post-mortem report to be without basis. It thus dismisses these allegations and finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter. 87. Overall, therefore, the Court dismisses all of the Applicants’ allegations relating to the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to life 88. The Applicants contend that the Respondent State’s capital punishment regime violated their right to life enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Section 240(3) – “Where a report referred to in this section is received in evidence the court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, if so requested by the accused person or his advocate, summon and examine or make available for cross-examination the person who made the report; and the court shall inform the accused person of his right to require the person who made the report to be summoned in accordance with the provisions of this subsection”. 32 23