178. The Complainants contend that the fair trial rights of the victim were violated in that; (a) the Court of Appeal misdirected itself by wrongfully invoking the doctrine of functus officio and refusing to order a retrial in Kobedi‟s case in the face of strong, compelling and new contrary expert reports and instead relied on the testimony of an unqualified forensic expert; (b) the right to counsel was not fully respected; (c) there were inordinate delays in the trial AC HP R process; (d) the Court placed a higher standard of proof - beyond reasonable doubts on the victim . 179. From the arguments and analysis of both the Complainants and the Respondent State, the essential question that must be asked here is whether the trial of the Kobedi complied with the provisions of Article 7 of the African Charter. 180. Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights provides that: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by the conventions, laws, regulations, and customs in force; b) The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal; c) The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; d) The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. 181. A holistic reading of Article 7 brings to the fore one core issue – having access to appropriate justice. The notion of access to appropriate justice is an important indicator of a sound and effective criminal justice system. The 49