62. The Applicant claims that the age of the alleged victim was also not ascertained, instead the court relied on the fictitious testimony of the victim’s mother PW1, whose family, he claims, already bore a grudge against his family because the victim’s mother, PW1 was upset that her husband had had an affair with his aunt. He avers that this claim was substantiated by his “witnesses 2 and 3”. * 63. The Respondent State avers that these allegations relate to purely evidential matters and that the court that is best suited to consider this is the trial court which had an opportunity to observe the demeanour of the Applicant and witnesses during trial. It asserts that this Court, should not assume the role of a criminal appellate court, a role which is not conferred upon it by the Charter and its Protocol. 64. The Respondent State avers that the trial and appellate courts were satisfied that the offence was committed and that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the Applicants argument that a paternity test should have been done, it argues that this was not necessary as the offence of rape only requires proof of penetration, which was already proved. The Respondent State argues that the age of the victim being 17 years at the time of the offence was proved through her own testimony and also by her mother. It is also the Respondent State’s contention that the arguments advanced by the Applicant are the same as those that he made during the appeal process and should therefore be dismissed for lack of merit, otherwise re-litigating them in this forum renders this Court an appellate criminal Court. 65. The Respondent State further surmises that the mere fact that the medical form contained an anomaly with regard to the identity and name of the father of the child is immaterial because the Applicant was correctly identified by the victim to the satisfaction of the trial court. 18