004014 147. Referring to the operative part of the Cotonou First Instance Court JUdgment No. 262/1FD-16 of 4 November 2016 ruling on flagrante delicto, the Respondent State contends that, contrary to the Applicant's allegations, the seized drug was first sealed and placed in the hands of the law at the Registry of the Cotonou First Instance Court before it was destroyed. 148. The Respondent State also affirmed that the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) Benin SA, which transported the container with the drug on behalf of the company COMON SA, was indeed heard in the context of the investigation by the joint judicial commission of inquiry set up specifically for the needs of the case, and that it appeared before CRIET as a civil party. *** 149. The right to defence set out in Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter is a key component of the right to a fair trial and reflects the potential of a judicial process to offer the parties the opportunity to express their claims and submit their evidence. The Court notes that the domain of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter applies to all stages of the proceedings in a case, from the preliminary investigation to the pronouncement of judgment, and is not limited solely to the conduct of hearings. 150. The Court notes that, to buttress his allegations, the Applicant makes reference to both the summary trial and the investigation procedure. 151. Regarding the argument that the summary trial procedure supposedly affected the Applicant's right of defence, the Court notes that the summary trial per se does not violate the right to defence. 152. On the question of investigation, the Court reiterates that the exigency of the right to defend oneself also implies the possibility for the accused to adduce evidence contrary to that invoked by the other party, interrogate the witnesses brought against him or call his own witnesses. r J. I 34 (/