They are Mohamad Zul Shahril Suhaimi, 26; Mohamad Sharafe Matt Noh, 25; Azizi Aizat Ibrahim, 26; and Mohamad Safwan Muhamad, 26.

A five-man bench, led by Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif, also affirmed the conviction and death sentence on Shahril; Sharafe and Azizi for the murder of the lecturer’s father, Omar Peter Abdullah.

Raus held that the evidence against the four was overwhelming.

The bench, which also comprised Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Zaharah Ibrahim, Balia Yusof Wahi and Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin, unanimously dismissed the final appeal by the four men.

Shahril, Sharafe, Azizi and Safwan, who studied at Cybernetics International College of Technology, were sentenced to death when the High Court found them guilty of killing Zara, 23, who lectured English at the college between 1.30am and 2.30am on March 9, 2012.

Shahril, Sharafe and Azizi were also convicted of murdering the lecturer’s father, Omar, 56, a retiree of a finance company, between 11.30pm, March 8, 2012, and 1.30am the following day.

They were accused of committing the murders at No 28, Jalan TK 1/11, Taman Kinrara, Puchong.

Initially, the High Court in 2014 had acquitted Safwan without calling for his defence to the charge of murdering Zara and her father.

On July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeal upheld Safwan’s acquittal against the murder of Omar but ordered him to enter his defence against the charge of murdering Zara and he was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death by the High Court.

The conviction and death sentence on the four were subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, the prosecution did not file an appeal to the Federal Court against Safwan’s acquittal for the alleged murder of Omar.

Lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, who represented Sharafe, submitted that there were many contradictions in the evidence of a prosecution witness, Fadhil Rusdan Rahman, which the High Court did not consider.

The witness was an accomplice but was made a prosecution witness in the case.

Hisyam said the High Court should have assessed the witness’s evidence at the prima facie stage but the court only made the assessment after defence was called.

Counsel Naran Singh for Safwan argued that if the High Court judge had believed Fadhil’s testimony, then the court must acquit his client as the witness had testified that Safwan was not involved in either of the murders.

Deputy public prosecutor Nurul Huda Noraini Mohamed Noor submitted that the High Court had assessed Fadhil’s evidence and found him to be reliable.

Lawyer Nik Mohamed Ikhwan Nik Mahmud represented Shahril while lawyer Shamsul Sulaiman acted for Azizi.