Charter can only have content if such evidence can be tested. It is contended by the Complainants that the application of the doctrine of functus officio to exclude fresh, credible and cogent evidence that could have the effect of a lesser sentence violates Article 4 of the African Charter. 119. It is averred further by the Complainants that as far as the trial of Kobedi is concerned, this fresh evidence includes, crucial ballistic analyses that Sgt. AC HP R Goepamang was struck by a high velocity firearm, AK 47, a type used by the police force and not a low velocity firearm, Kalashnikov 9mm, found in possession of the Victim; vital ballistic analyses that Sgt. Goepamang was shot from the side and not from the front as contained in the High Court judgment; and expert medical evidence of gross medical negligence towards Sgt. Goepamang during his time in hospital. 120. In arguing that the death penalty cannot be imposed for attempted murder in the Respondent State, the Complainants make the point that even if the culprit/victim with premeditated intent, wished to kill his victim, but the victim was saved by the skills of brilliant doctors, the Court has no power to sentence the culprit to death. In the case of Kobedi, they argue that during his trial, crucial expert medical evidence was adduced revealing gross medical negligence towards Sgt. Goepamang during his time in hospital and that were it not for gross medical mismanagement by the hospitals and medical staff treating Sgt. Goepamang, he would not have died from the injuries he sustained. 121. The Complainants further argue that the imposition of the death penalty on Kobedi without recourse to any meaningful post-conviction enquiry as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed by the Courts in the Respondent State also offends Article 4 of the African Charter. 30