(a) The right to full investigation and to present evidence 143. The Applicant complains about the summary trial procedure to which he was subjected. According to him, this procedure is exceptional and was brought against him for the sole purpose of violating his right to defence and having him sentenced swiftly. 144. He alleges that the Judgment of 4 November 2016, which ended up in his acquittal on the benefit of the doubt, did not offer him the means to fully demonstrate his innocence, because according to him, the Cotonou First Instance Court refused to admit his evidence as regards the conspiracy of which he is victim . 145. The Applicant also submits that the investigation was conducted in such a way that traces of the "conspiracy" which he has always denounced were wiped away. He contends in that regard that fingerprints on the seals and the sachets containing the drugs were not taken; that these were erased and that the cocaine was swiftly destroyed. He also contends that the investigating officers should have taken the temperature of the frozen gizzards and that of the cocaine to determine whether both types of product were introduced into the container at the same time. * 146. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant is unfounded in arguing that his summary trial was intended to violate his rights, and that he has never been prevented from tendering any evidence; none of his rights has been violated, the trial having been conducted in strict compliance with the law. It asserts that the summary trial procedure was initiated with the aim of preserving the Applicant's rights in the best possible way by avoiding provisional detention which might not be justified. I '-·33