Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 8 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 [18] Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Court was satisfied that the appellant had, indeed, been convicted and that submissions on the issue of extenuation were made. Under oath, the trial judge stated that he convicted the applicant of murder with actual intent and that, following submissions by both parties, he found no extenuating circumstances. In affidavits filed pursuant to an order of this Court, the legal process transcriber confirmed that the matter proceeded to the extenuation stage and that no extenuating circumstances were found. The trial prosecutor, Mrs Ziyambi, also by affidavit, confirmed that there was a conviction for murder although it appears she could not recall whether the issue of extenuation was determined. Moreover one of the assessors, Mrs Shava, also confirmed that indeed the applicant was found guilty of murder. [19] Having taken into account all these documents, we were satisfied that the trial had indeed proceeded to the stage where the trial court made a finding that there were no extenuating circumstances. For some reason, which remains unclear, the actual sentence of death (which requires certain formalities) had not been passed. WHETHER THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE RECORD CAN BE RECONSTRUCTED [20] All the parties were agreed that the transcript of the proceedings that was prepared using Mrs Ziyambi’s trial notes is correct. The transcript captures what happened during the trial proceedings up until the close of the defence case. [21] In submissions before this Court, the State indicated that, at a conference held in the presence of both parties, the trial judge had indicated that he was in a position to reconstruct the remaining portion of the record of the proceedings. [22] This Court therefore accepted, as a fact, that notwithstanding the various difficulties that had been encountered in trying to reconstruct the record, such reconstruction