99. The Court notes that in view of the challenge to the allegation under consideration by the Respondent State, the Applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has not provided any such proof. The Court therefore dismisses this allegation. B) The allegation that the charge against the Applicant was defective 100. In his Application, the Applicant alleges that the charge sheet was marred by defects. 101. In his written submissions attached to the Application, the Applicant argued that on the charge sheet by which he was arraigned before the trial, it was indicated that he was the only one to have committed the armed robbery, whereas the evidence indicates that they were many. He argues that according to law, the charge sheet should have been amended accordingly, which was not done. 102. In its Response, the Respondent contests that allegation and asked that the Applicant provide strict proof thereof. Regarding the difference between the content of the charge sheet, which mentions only one accused person, and the evidence before the judge indicating that there were several thieves, the Respondent State indicated that the law provides for the possibility of modifying the charge sheet only if there has been a defect in the substance and on the form; that in the instant case, the fact that the other thieves were not mentioned in the charge sheet did not distort the substance or form of the charge; and that had the other thieves been arrested, the charge sheet would been duly amended have to include them. The Respondent State further argued that if other people involved in the armed robbery were to be arrested even today, they could still be charged with the crime since there is no time limitation in criminal matters; and that in fact their inclusion in the charge sheet would have been a huge irregularity, and would have rendered the charge sheet defective. 103. The Respondent State concludes that the allegation is frivolous and misconceived and should be dismissed. ~ S bee se —_ Re ex