59. The Applicant further avers that the evidence used to convict him had several contradictions and inconsistencies which compromise the credibility of the witness (PW1). The Applicant alleges that the said witness (PW1) contradicted herself and her co-witnesses in stating that the Applicant was named first at the Police station and also in relation to how, where and when he was arrested. 60. According to the Applicant, the uncorroborated and unsworn evidence of the key witness PW1 required corroboration from the other three witnesses who claimed to have been at the scene of the crime and should tally with the post-mortem examination and/or with testimony of the doctor who examined the deceased. However, the Applicant alleges, neither the witness testimony nor the result of the post-mortem examination was tendered and thus PW1’s evidence was not corroborated. 61. The Applicant also asserts that if the Court of Appeal had granted the extension of time to file an application for review of its own judgment, the errors might have been corrected. Instead, according to the Applicant, the conviction which was upheld violated his right to a fair trial. * 62. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s submissions and contends that his allegations should be put to strict proof. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant’s trial and his appeals were conducted in accordance with its laws and in line with international human rights standards. In this regard, it asserts that the Court of Appeal thoroughly assessed the grounds of appeal and concluded that the appeal lacked merit and thus dismissed it. 63. In response to the Applicant’s submission that he was convicted based on the weakest visual identification of a single witness (PW1), the Respondent State contends that both the trial court and the Court of Appeal addressed