66oisB 61. The Court also notes that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4 were not in direct contradiction to each other, but rather certain details were only mentioned by one witness and not by the others. 62. The Court thus dismisses the allegations of the Applicant that the Court of Appeal failed to properly examine his grounds of appeal and that the evidence that was used to uphold his conviction was not watertight. 63. ln light of the above, the Court therefore holds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant's right to a fair trial with respect to the inconsistencies among witnesses' testimonies and the alleged lack alleged of proper evaluation of evidence and of his grounds of appeal by the Court of Appeal. ii) The right to defence 64.1n his Application, the Applicant alleges a violation of Article 7(1Xc) of the Charter by the Respondent State. 65. The Respondent State reiterates its submission that all the Applicant's grounds of appealwere examined and determined by the Court of Appeal and thus, there was no violation of Article 7(1) (c) of the Charter. 66.The Court notes that Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter as indicated above, provides for the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of one's choice. This Court has consistently interpreted this provision in light of Article 14 (3) (d) of the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR)s, which establishes the right to free legal counsel and determined that the right to defence e The Respondent State became a State Party to ICCPR on on 1 1 June 1976 \S(\.--- t7 @-