The Court of Appeal, after reviewing all the evidence, concluded that no other person(s) had handled the Cannabis Sativa “until when it was handed over to PW 8 for transportation to PW9 the Government Chemist …”. Overall, the Court of Appeal held that “considering that exhibit P2 was sealed and stored by PW7 before transportation, the three months delay to transport to the Chief Government Chemist could not result into its mixing up …”. 77. The Court of Appeal thus held that there was a reasonable account for the delay in transportation of the Cannabis Sativa to the government chemist more so because “the impugned stuff could not be transported in piecemeals or else, higher risk on chances of tampering or mixing up of the Exhibit 2.” It also held that the chain of custody was not broken from the moment the police arrested the Applicants and impounded the Cannabis Sativa to the time it was handed over for testing to the government chemist. 78. In reviewing the record, the Court finds no fault in the manner in which the Court of Appeal dealt with the question of delay in submitting the Cannabis Sativa to the government chemist. More importantly, the Applicants have not demonstrated that there was any tampering with the exhibits once it had been confiscated by the Respondent State’s agents. 79. In the circumstances, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ allegations of a violation of their right to fair trial. D. Alleged violation due to the lack of a supreme court in the Respondent State 80. The Applicants submit that they are suffering due to the repressive judicial system in the Respondent State. According to their submission, if there was a Supreme Court in the Respondent State, the deficiencies that they have identified with the Court of Appeal’s process would have been resolved in their favour. * 21