J) The allegation that the Applicant was convicted without the crime weapons or the stolen items being recovered 195. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that at the time of his arrest he was found neither with the crime weapons nor with the items stolen, and that he had mentioned all that to both the trial magistrate and the appellate Judge. 196. At the same Public Hearing, the Respondent State’s representative argued that according to the witnesses, there were weapons such as guns, a club, a machete and a sword used to threaten the victims; that by law, all that the prosecution has to prove is that an offensive weapon has been used, that the Applicant was in the company of two or more persons, and at that time or later, he used this offensive weapon to intimidate victims. * 197. The Court notes that the Respondent State recognises that the crime weapons have not been found, and that the existence and nature of the said weapons have been established based on testimonies. 198. The Court notes, however, that the fact that the crime weapons have not been recovered does not mean that the offence of armed robbery cannot be established based on factors other than physical evidence, provided these other factors have weighty probative value. 199. Consequently, the Court cannot infer from the mere absence of the crime weapons, that the Applicant did not have a fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter. . foes ne GY