107. Regarding whether the conviction was properly arrived at based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Court first notes that, as records of the domestic proceedings show, both the High Court and Court of Appeal considered a wide range of circumstantial evidence to which they applied both the law and extensive case law on the use of circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, both courts examined the Applicant's alibi and defence and arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubpo More particularly, it is evident from the Court of Appeal's judgment that it undertook a thorough case law-based analysis of conditions in which reliance on circumstantial evidence should apply generally31 and in cases similar to that of the Applicant in the instant matter. 32 108. As to whether domestic courts properly arrived at the conviction by ignoring contradictions as well as other evidence, this Court notes that the Court of Appeal considered all the contradictions raised by the Applicant, including those alleged before this Court, and reached the conclusion that they did not affect the credibility of the prosecution's case. 33 It is important to note that, where it decided not to undertake a thorough consideration of issues raised by Counsel for the Applicant because they were deemed immaterial or had been considered, the Court of Appeal provided reasons for doing so including applicable case law. 34 These are the grounds on which the Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court properly arrived at its finding. 35 109. Turning to the claim that his statement was tampered with and used against him during the trial, the Court notes that the Applicant raised the issue of pages being added. He also raised the use of the statement as a ground of appeal. However, in the Court's view, the determining factor in assessing a breach of due process is whether the alleged reliance on the Applicant's statement outweighed other evidence and considerations. Criminal Case 40 of 2007. Judgment of the High Court, 30 March 2010, pages 14-26; and Judgment of the Court of Appeal, 28 January 2014, pages 16-33. 31 See Judgment of the Court of Appeal, pages 16-19. 32 See Judgment of the Court of Appeal, pages 19-29. 33 See Judgment of the Court of Appeal, pages 29-31 34 See Judgment of the Court of Appeal, pages 30-31. 35 See Judgment of the Court of Appeal, page 33. 30 28