i. The domestic courts did not consider the Applicants’ evidence, nor did they give reasons for disregarding the evidence; ii. The domestic courts contravened section 240 of the Respondent State’s Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as “CPA”), because the post mortem report of the deceased was improperly admitted as evidence; iii. The domestic courts erred when they convicted the Applicants based on inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of witnesses whose credibility was questionable. iv. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. v. The mandatory death penalty, as prescribed by the Respondent State’s Penal Code, offends their right to dignity as enshrined in Article 5 of the Charter. vi. The mandatory death penalty imposed on them violates their right to life, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 13(6)(d) and 14 of the Respondent State’s Constitution. III. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 7. The Application was received at the Registry on 1 September 2016 and served on the Respondent State on 15 November 2016. 8. On 18 November 2016, the Court issued an order for provisional measures directing the Respondent State to refrain from executing the death penalty imposed on the Applicants until the conclusion of these proceedings. 9. The Respondent State filed its Response on 24 May 2017 and this was transmitted to the Applicants on the same day. 10. After several extensions of time, the Parties filed their other pleadings on the merits and reparations within the time granted by the Court. 11. Pleadings were closed on 23 August 2017, and the Parties were duly notified. 4