evidence at issue was not illegally obtained while section 169 only applies when what is at issue is illegally obtained evidence. The Respondent State also points out that the judgment of the Court of Appeal, at page 12, dealt with the applicability of section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act and found no fault with the approach adopted by the High Court. 105. The Respondent State submits that the caution statements of the 2nd and 3rd Applicant were not admitted unprocedurally. In support of its submission, it argues that “the law allows for conviction to be based solely on the accused’s cautioned statement if the Court believes there was compliance with the laws dictating how such statement was taken and if it find the information contained in the statement to be true.” 106. In respect of the 2nd Applicant, the Respondent State submits that he admitted, in his caution statement, that he was aware of the conspiracy to rob the vehicle carrying money from Mohamed Enterprises and also that he signed the caution statement and did not dispute his signature during trial. As for the 3rd Applicant, the Respondent State submits that he admitted to shooting the victims during the robbery, as the judgment of the Court of Appeal indicates at page 20. 107. It accordingly submits that Exhibits P7, P9 and P10 were all obtained in compliance with laid down procedure and that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were justified “in convicting the Applicants based on the statements after being satisfied … of the prosecution case.” *** 108. From the record, the Court observes that the admissibility of the Applicants’ caution statements was dealt with at length by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This is clear from pages 52 to 53 of the judgment of the High Court. Additionally, from pages 55 to 56 of the High Court’s judgment, the trial judge went at length to expound the legal basis on which he was admitting the Applicants’ caution statements. 29