consider this allegation first, before assessing the alleged violations of Articles 3(2) and 5 of the Charter. A. Alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard 46. The Court observes, from the record, that the Applicant raises two grievances against the domestic courts whose actions or omissions he claims violated his rights. These grievances are: i. That the trial court and appellate courts erred in law and in fact to convict the Applicant based on improbable and implausible evidence of a single witness and other contradictory and inconsistent evidence. ii. That the trial court and appellate courts erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the evidence in his defence. 47. The Court will proceed to examine these two grievances in light of Article 7(1) of the Charter. i. Allegation relating to the evidence upon which the conviction was based 48. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State’s courts erred in convicting him based on the evidence of a single witness. Firstly, the Applicant contends that the claim of the victim that she was with him on the date and at the scene of the incident is improbable, as there were no other witnesses who were called to testify in the trial court to corroborate her claim. According to the Applicant, it is usual for a hotel to have several people, including servants and guards. The fact that the court acted upon a statement of the hotel manager that confirmed the victim’s statement was an error. 49. The Applicant further argues that the evidence of the victim was not credible as the victim alleged that she was a virgin prior to the rape and that she was bleeding after the rape. However, this point was not corroborated by the testimony of witness PW2, who is the mother of the victim, nor by 13