00081 74. I The Court also notes the fact that the items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the rape were not presented as evidence before the domestic judicial authorities and the prosecuting authorities merely stated that their production was deemed to be irrelevant. 75. Furthermore, the Court notes that the absence of information in the record of proceedings concerning the steps taken to obtain clarifications on whether the victim's mother sells alcoholic beverages and, if so, determine the trading hours of the business; and whether the Applicant was drinking in her presence on the material day, as she claims, and up to what time; and cross-check this information with the version given by the victim who claims that no adults were at home at the time; the reasons as to why no blood was drawn from the Applicant for testing to confirm whether or not the bodily fluids of the rapist found in the victim's private parts or on her clothing matched the Applicant's DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) disclose patent anomalies in the domestic proceedings. 76. The Court is of the view that the medical report should not be limited to only confirming the occurrence of rape, but should also ascertain whether the offence had been committed by the Applicant, since the victim was taken for medical examination when she was still wearing the same clothes about one hour after the offence was committed (between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.). ln the instant case, there is no mention that the Respondent State has any technical constraints in that respect, and as such due diligence would have required the DNA testing to clear any doubt as to who committed the offence. 77. The Court recalls its position in the matter of Mohamed Abubakari v. tJnited Republic of Tanzamal6, where it emphasised the need to obtain clarification on issues or situations likely to impact the decision of the judges. In the instant case, the Court's understanding is that even if it is accepted that, in offences of sexual nature, the main testimony is given by the victim, as the Respondent State's 16 Moha med Abubakari v Tanzania Judgment, paras. 1 10 and 1 1 1 . See also Application No. 006/2015, Judgme nt of 231312018, Nguza Viking (Babua Seya) and Johnson Nguza (Papi Kocha), paras. 105 107. - e- t